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 adds useful transparency by disclosing the cost ($0.05 USDC) and implying a read-only operation via 'retrieve.' However, it does not describe return format, possible errors, rate limits, or whether network access is required. The phrase 'recent' is also imprecise about the data window.

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 short sentences with no redundant fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the unique cost detail. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. However, the description does not explain what the returned history contains (e.g., data fields, format, or how it relates to the 'Kronos' concept). It also lacks details on pagination or limits. This is a minimal viable description but not fully complete for an agent needing to anticipate results.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'hours' parameter, including range and default. The description does not add any further parameter details, but the baseline is 3 because the schema already documents the parameter thoroughly. No extra semantics are needed.

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 uses the verb 'retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'Kronos market context history for supported crypto symbols.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_crypto_signals or get_crypto_forecast by focusing on history. However, the term 'Kronos' is unexplained and 'supported crypto symbols' is vague, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only practical hint is the cost, but that is not a usage guideline. Sibling tools exist for signals, risk, and forecasts, but no comparative context is given.

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