market_history

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does add the valuable operational context that CLUBY_INDEXER_URL is required, which is not visible in the schema. However, it leaves out output format, error behavior, and whether the operation is purely read-only.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core data fields and scope are front-loaded, and the environment prerequisite is stated concisely at the end. Every sentence 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?

For a two-parameter tool, the description names the returned concepts and the external requirement, which provides a reasonable baseline. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and sinceUnix left undocumented, an agent cannot fully anticipate the return shape or time-range semantics.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It gives some meaning to market by saying 'for one market,' but sinceUnix is never explained, including its units or whether it is an epoch timestamp. The description only partially compensates for the missing 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 identifies the resource as historical supply, borrow, utilization, and price data for a single market. It distinguishes itself from list_markets and get_market by emphasizing 'over time,' though it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetches' or 'returns.'

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent should use this tool when it needs time-series metrics for one market. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_market or list_markets, nor does it explain when not to use this tool. The CLUBY_INDEXER_URL requirement is operational, not a usage selector.

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