get_prices

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses the output format (one row per day, newest first) and that prices are in USD. It does not mention data limitations or potential missing days, but for a read-only data retrieval tool this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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 two sentences long, with the action and object front-loaded. It provides relevant details about returned fields and ordering without any redundant or filler text.

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 fully documented parameters, the description adequately covers the return format and main use case. It does not discuss edge cases like missing data or date-range constraints, but these are either in the schema or not essential for basic invocation. The lack of an output schema makes the return-format clarification valuable, which is included.

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 already provides descriptions for all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond a high-level summary. It does not explain interactions like start_date overriding days, but the schema already documents this, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: daily OHLC prices in USD, market cap, and 24h trading volume. It also specifies the response shape (one row per day, newest first), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_metric or list_metrics.

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 implies usage by stating what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_metric or render_chart. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the selection decision mostly to the parameter names.

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