get_kronos_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a cost ('Costs $0.05 USDC') and the historical scope ('up to 168 hours'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, or mention authentication or rate limits, so transparency is moderate.

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 concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and include an important cost detail. There is no redundant or vague wording, making it highly efficient.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it retrieves, the time window, the cost, and the intended use case. It could mention output format or any limitations beyond hours, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter 'hours' with min, max, default, and description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reiterating 'up to 168 hours,' which is already present in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Get up to 168 hours of timestamped Kronos signal history' using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Kronos signal history'). It also mentions 'for analysis and audit support,' which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_kronos_signals (likely current signals) and get_kronos_forecast.

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 contextual guidance ('for analysis and audit support') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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