kronos_history

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

The description discloses a cost of $0.001 USDC via x402, which is a useful behavioral trait beyond the schema. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden for transparency; it omits basic behavior such as whether it is read-only, what data it returns, or any side effects, leaving the agent largely in the dark.

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 short but not effective. The first sentence 'kronos history — Kronos Market Intel tool' restates the tool name and adds no new information, while the cost sentence is the only useful part. It could be more concise by removing the redundant first clause.

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 context is complex: many sibling kronos tools exist, no annotations are provided, no output schema exists, and the input schema is generic. The description fails to explain the purpose of 'history', what parameters go inside the params object, what output to expect, or when to choose this over siblings, making it severely incomplete.

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 has one parameter 'params' described as 'Tool parameters as JSON object', which gives 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the schema carries the load; baseline 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 identifies the tool as a 'Kronos Market Intel tool' but does not state what 'history' does, such as retrieving past market data. It fails to distinguish it from sibling tools like kronos_signals or kronos_forecast, which also fall under the same market intel umbrella.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to the many sibling kronos tools, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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