get_crypto_synced_balance_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the context that synced crypto is scoped per symbol and that this tool returns monthly history, which is useful but not a rich behavioral disclosure. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero redundancy. The first states the core purpose and identification method; the second clarifies the key distinction from a sibling tool. All information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only history tool with 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it identifies the resource, scoping, and a key limitation (not available via get_account_balance_history). The optional date-range parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the absence of an output schema is not a critical gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema fully documents all four parameters, including optional start_month and end_month with patterns and constraints. The description itself only reiterates 'account id and ticker symbol', which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. With full coverage, a baseline 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 action ('Get'), the resource ('monthly balance history for a synced crypto holding'), and the identifying parameters ('account id and ticker symbol'). It also distinguishes itself from a sibling tool, get_account_balance_history, by noting the per-symbol scoping, making it unambiguous for an agent.

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 explicitly names an alternative (get_account_balance_history) and explains why it should not be used for synced crypto ('scoped per symbol'), which is clear guidance for when to select this tool. However, it does not mention other closely related siblings like get_synced_crypto_balance (for current balance) or get_balance_history, so the guidance is not exhaustive.

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