get_history_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only status, authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects. The description fails to compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 excessively brief (one sentence) and uses the unexplained acronym 'BCA', sacrificing clarity for brevity. It does not effectively communicate the tool's value or usage.

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 the complexity (two parameters, no output schema, unspecific description), the description is inadequate. It lacks parameter explanations, return value details, and distinctiveness from similar sibling tools.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage. The required parameter 'entity_slug' and optional parameter 'days' are not explained in the description. No additional meaning is provided beyond their types, leaving their purpose and format unclear.

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 states it provides 'historical BCA coverage series per entity', indicating a per-entity historical data retrieval. However, it uses the acronym 'BCA' without definition, and the term 'coverage' is ambiguous. It does not clearly distinguish from siblings like get_history_prices or get_history_sentiment, which also provide historical series.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous history-related siblings (e.g., get_history_prices, get_history_correlation), the lack of usage context leaves the agent without decision criteria for selection.

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