narrative_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the data source (CoinGecko Categories), caching ('5-min cache'), retention rules ('365d retention, permanent monthly archive'), and output structure. It omits rate limits or auth details, but as a read-only history tool with no destructive behavior, these are less critical.

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 information-dense with a front-loaded summary, followed by output specs, filtering, use case, and technical details. There is minor redundancy between the first and second sentences ('top crypto market sectors ranked by market cap change %...' vs 'One row per day per sector...'), but every sentence contributes meaningful context.

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 clearly explains the return format ('One row per day per sector: ...'), the data source, and the retention/cache behavior. It does not state ordering of rows or pagination, but for a 2-parameter, read-only history endpoint with 90-day max, the explanation is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 value beyond the schema: it gives concrete sector examples (DeFi, Layer 2, AI, Meme Coins), clarifies the optional sector filter's effect ('single sector trend' vs 'all sectors'), and reinforces the days constraint ('up to 90 days').

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get daily narrative/sector history...', then enumerates exact output fields (market cap change %, strength score, token count, daily rank, top tokens). It clearly differentiates from the sibling 'narratives' by emphasizing 'history' and 'over up to 90 days', so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 gives clear context and a use case: 'Useful for identifying which narratives are accelerating or fading.' It also explains the sector filter behavior ('Filter by ?sector= for a single sector trend'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'narratives' for current snapshots, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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