get_crypto_signal_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the data source (Kronos), time horizon, assets, and cost ($0.05 USDC). However, it does not specify behavioral traits such as rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when no data is available. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 at two sentences (31 words total). It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Historical 15-minute crypto signals'), followed by essential details (assets, time range, cost). Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of what to expect (historical signals). It covers the data source, time range, assets, and cost. However, it does not describe the return format or fields, which would be helpful for an agent. Still, it is largely sufficient for basic usage.

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 adds minimal value beyond the schema: it confirms the max hours (168) and explains the affiliate_id purpose and commission structure. These additions are helpful but not critical, resulting in a score at baseline.

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 historical 15-minute crypto signals for specific assets (BTC/ETH/SOL/XRP/ADA) with a time range up to 168 hours. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_crypto_signals (likely real-time) and get_crypto_decision by focusing on historical data and including cost details.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the historical nature is implied, there is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparisons to sibling tools like get_crypto_signals. The cost hint is present but insufficient for clear decision-making.

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