get_crypto_history

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

No annotations exist. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or data timezone; only lists valid periods/intervals.

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?

Description is concise but follows a docstring style with Args/Returns sections. Could be trimmed slightly, but generally well-structured.

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 the output schema exists (list[CryptoHistory]), return values are defined. Parameters are fully documented. No annotations present, but for a simple retrieval tool, completeness is high.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning to all parameters: ticker is the symbol, period is a time period with valid options listed, interval is data interval with list. Provides defaults and valid values.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves historical price data for a cryptocurrency, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_history (non-crypto) and get_crypto_info.

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 is implied by the description but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided against sibling tools like get_history.

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