analysis.price_history

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It states that the tool returns price points and a sparkline visualization, and it notes it's a Pro feature. However, it does not disclose data freshness, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied). There is no contradiction with any annotation as none exist.

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 sentences: the first clearly defines the action and parameters, and the second adds output details and access note. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by mentioning 'price points with a sparkline visualization'. This is sufficient for a simple data retrieval tool. Given the tool's low complexity and the richness of sibling tools, it is adequately complete.

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% as both parameters have descriptions. The description adds context that the data is OHLC and includes a sparkline, but it largely paraphrases the schema's enum values and token_id description. With full schema coverage, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('historical OHLC price data for a market token'). It also specifies the configurable time window and mentions output details, distinguishing it from related tools like markets.price (current price) or analysis.compare.

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 mentions the configurable time window and valid intervals, giving context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it nor provides alternatives among the many sibling tools. The 'Pro feature' note implies access limitations but lacks usage guidance.

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