crypto_prices

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what happens on invalid tickers, whether data is limited to a certain range, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety signals.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it is minimal, it is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it lacks a structured breakdown of details that could accompany longer descriptions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., array of OHLCV data). It also doesn't mention what happens when optional parameters are omitted, such as default time ranges or frame granularity. While the purpose is clear, an agent would benefit from knowing the expected output and default behavior, which this description omits.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it does not clarify formats further or explain defaults for optional parameters (from, to, frame) beyond what the schema says. Thus, the description offers no extra value in parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'historical price data for a cryptocurrency', which differentiates it from siblings like crypto_quote (likely current price) and crypto_gainers/losers (movement lists). The word 'historical' provides a precise scope that aligns with the tool's name, making its purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crypto_quote or other asset-class price tools. The description does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions under which another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.