Price history

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld). The description adds real operational context beyond them: plan-tier gating, the depth ceiling that varies by plan, and an explicit per-call cost of 1 unit. It stops short of describing what the "summary" portion returns, but this is solid added value.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the gating constraint, then cost. Every clause carries information, though the telegraphic phrasing reads slightly compressed.

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?

For a parameterized read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers access requirements, depth limits, and cost – the practical things an agent needs before calling. It is missing only a description of the returned series/summary shape, which a lack of output schema makes slightly more noticeable.

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 75%, giving a baseline of 3, and the description goes further by explaining that the history depth (and therefore valid period values like 90d/1y/all) is capped by plan tier. That constraint is not encoded in the enum schema alone, so it materially improves parameter interpretation. The grade parameter remains unexplained in both places.

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?

"Daily price history and summary" states a specific resource (price history) and the cadence (daily), which tells the agent it is a time-series tool rather than a spot lookup. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling flipzi_get_price or flipzi_get_sold_comps, leaving the agent to guess which history/pricing tool to pick.

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 plan prerequisite ("Requires the basic plan or higher") and the depth caps are stated, which tells the agent when the tool is callable at all. But there is no guidance on when to prefer this over flipzi_get_price for a single quote, so the use case is only implied.

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