get_price_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that returns are 'sampled daily prices with date stamps and overall period change percentage,' which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential error handling (e.g., invalid coin_id), sampling method (e.g., end-of-day), or limitations (e.g., rate limits). The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences with front-loading: first sentence states purpose, second adds return details, third provides use case. No filler or redundant information. Every sentence earns its place. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, return structure, and typical use case. It lacks explicit details on the exact output format (e.g., array of objects), but the mention of 'sampled daily prices with date stamps' gives a strong hint. With no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for an AI to understand the result.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the allowed days values from the schema (1, 7, 30, 90, 365, max) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The parameter descriptions in the schema are already sufficient for an AI agent.

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 purpose: 'Get historical price data for a coin over N days'. It lists specific day options (1, 7, 30, 90, 365, max) and mentions return contents (daily prices, date stamps, percentage change). This provides clear verb+resource specificity and helps distinguish from sibling tools like get_prices (current prices) and get_trending (trending data).

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 clear usage context: 'Useful for charting trends and identifying price patterns over time.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or offer alternatives. Given sibling tools like get_prices (possibly for current prices) and get_token_price_comparison (for multiple tokens), the description could benefit from exclusions, but the implied use case is clear.

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