Get Item Price Graph

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

With readOnlyHint=true already provided, the description adds useful context about the 180-day historical scope, which is a behavioral detail not present in annotations. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors such as output format or any limitations, so it provides only moderate added transparency.

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, concise sentence with front-loaded verb and resource. It includes essential scope (180 days) and input method without any filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description provides the core essentials: what data is returned (price graph data), time frame, and how to specify the item. It could be more explicit about the graph format, but given the simplicity and annotation, it is adequately complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters described in the schema. The description's phrase 'by itemId or name' adds no new semantic depth beyond the schema's property descriptions. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries full parameter documentation.

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 a specific action ('Get historical Grand Exchange price graph data'), the resource (price graph data), and the time scope (last 180 days). It also specifies input methods (by itemId or name), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_item_price or summarize_price_history.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use: when historical graph data over 180 days is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools to guide selection.

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