historical_token_prices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions token support and domain resolution but omits rate limits, error handling, response format, and whether multiple tokens are supported (ambiguity from 'one (or many)').

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 concise with a clear separation of required and optional parameters. It is front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 no output schema, the description should detail return format but only says 'Returns historical token prices'. The ambiguity around 'one (or many)' tokens and lack of pagination or error handling leaves significant gaps.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context (native token support, default sort order) but largely reiterates schema descriptions without significant additional meaning.

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 the tool retrieves historical prices for ERC20 and native tokens within date ranges, using specific verbs 'Get' and 'supports'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'historical_token_balances' by focusing on prices.

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 lists required and optional parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'historical_token_balances' or 'pool_spot_prices'. Usage context is implied but not formally contrasted.

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