get_crypto_signal_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral details: costs '$0.05 USDC' and specifies the data covers 'recent' history for five assets. It does not mention read-only status or rate limits, but the non-destructive nature is implied.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey purpose, usage, and cost. It is front-loaded with the key information about what the tool provides.

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 could elaborate on return format or fields, but it covers the essentials: asset list, timeframe ('recent'), and cost. It is sufficient for a simple history-fetching tool with clear input parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'hours' and 'affiliate_id'. The schema already explains both parameters adequately.

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 states the tool provides 'Recent Kronos context history' for specific assets (BTC/ETH/SOL/XRP/ADA) and the action is to 'inspect model context and freshness'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_crypto_signals and get_crypto_decision by focusing on historical context.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use it to inspect model context and freshness before or after a decision.' It implies the context of decision-making but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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