price_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minor context (the temporal scope and resolution) but does not explain return format, pagination, or potential data latency. With annotations carrying the main behavioral disclosure, this is adequate but thin.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately links the parameters. There is no redundant filler or repetition of the tool name. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 simple (3 parameters, one required) and annotations cover read-only and idempotent behavior. Still, with no output schema, the description does not state what the response looks like (e.g., an array of price points, timestamps, or units). This leaves some ambiguity, but the phrase 'price history at fidelity_minutes resolution' hints at aggregated time series data, so it is not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does relate the parameters to the query: 'hours back' clarifies the 'hours' parameter, 'fidelity_minutes resolution' clarifies fidelity_minutes, and 'CLOB token id' identifies token_id. However, this is only a minimal restatement of the parameter names and does not add significant detail about formats, constraints, or allowed values.

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 identifies the resource ('recent price history') and its scope ('CLOB token id', 'hours back', 'fidelity_minutes resolution'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_orderbook or get_trades because it specifically mentions price history, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'gets' or 'retrieves'.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or refer to sibling tools such as kalshi_get_trades or get_market. An agent is left to infer that price history is for historical data rather than live quotes.

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