get_chain_collateral_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Public REST' (no auth likely) and indicates the data is keyed by chain and interval. However, it does not describe the response format, pagination, or any rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every clause adds value.

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 simple two-parameter schema with enums and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and keying. It could be slightly more explicit about the returned data shape, but the tool name and 'historical series' clarify the general return type.

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?

The description adds meaning by mapping the interval enum values to chart periods ('7D/1M/6M/1Y') and stating that the tool is 'keyed by chain and interval'. This goes beyond the bare enum names in the schema, though it doesn't elaborate on each parameter individually.

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 tool as providing per-chain historical series for chart periods (7D/1M/6M/1Y) and explicitly distinguishes it from ilk-based tools by stating 'not by ilk'. It lacks an explicit verb but the resource and scope are specific, making the purpose understandable.

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: it is for per-chain historical chart data, and the phrase 'not by ilk' provides a negative usage guideline (avoid if you need ilk-specific data). It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_collateral_history, but the distinction is evident from sibling tool names.

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