Retrieve historical OHLC price data for a Polymarket market token. Define token ID, date range, and resolution to analyze price trends and past performance.
Get historical price data (OHLC). Note: Limited availability via public API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | No | End date (ISO format or timestamp) | |
| token_id | Yes | Token ID | |
| resolution | No | Time resolution (default: 1h) | 1h |
| start_date | No | Start date (ISO format or timestamp) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Limited availability via public API', which is a useful caveat, but it does not mention return format details (beyond OHLC), potential errors, rate limits, or any side effects. The disclosure is minimal and incomplete.
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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the availability note is placed second. Every word earns its place.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what happens if dates are omitted, how the OHLC data is structured, or any pagination or error behaviors. The 'limited availability' note is vague. An agent would need additional information to call this correctly in many scenarios.
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%, so all parameters (token_id, start_date, end_date, resolution) are documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond implying that start/end dates define a historical range. This meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.
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 'Get historical price data (OHLC)' which specifies a verb, a resource, and the data format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_current_price, which focuses on current prices, so the agent can tell them apart.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and the mention of 'historical'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.