Get Price History

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context beyond those hints: a 20 requests/second/IP limit, a 30-second cache recommendation, refresh staggering across markets, and the caveat that custom ranges return stored observations that may be irregular or sub-minute. Return-shape caveats (bid-ask spread preserved, prices can sum above 1) are also disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a bulleted profile table that is dense but scannable; the length is largely justified by seven enum values that each need a fidelity pairing. The closing caching/rate-limit sentence is operationally useful but adds bulk and a markdown link, which slightly dilutes the otherwise tight structure.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the returned fields itself — it does, defining `longPrice` and `shortPrice` and warning that they preserve the spread and are not trades. Combined with mode selection, rate limits, and the live-update alternative, nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so a 3 would be the baseline, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot: it maps each enum interval to the exact `fidelity` value (1, 5, 180), states that custom ranges require both Unix timestamps plus `fidelity=1`, and equates `symbol` with the market slug. That is substantive guidance on mutually exclusive parameter combinations rather than a restatement of field docs.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: "Returns book-derived Yes and No display prices for one market." It pins the scope (one market per request) and clarifies the semantics of the returned values (derived from best ask / one minus best bid, not individual trades), which separates it from the OHLC series sibling and from get_market_bbo.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing: enumerated fixed profiles with their required `fidelity` values, custom ranges for short windows "up to 24 hours," and a direct handoff to the Markets WebSocket "for live updates after loading history." An agent can pick the correct mode without inference.

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