Get Price History

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the basic function. It does not mention limitations, error behavior, rate limits, or how the data is returned. For a read-only data retrieval tool, the lack of any behavioral context makes the description minimally adequate at best.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence. However, conciseness crosses into under-specification, as it omits critical information. It is front-loaded but not adequately informative, so it earns a middle score.

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 five parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter meanings, expected return format, or usage context. The tool cannot be used correctly based on this description alone.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It fails to explain any of the five parameters, and it even misleads by using 'token' instead of the actual parameter 'market'. This is a clear gap in semantic clarity.

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 tool's action ('Get') and resource ('historical price data'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_prices and get_midpoint. However, it uses 'token' while the schema uses 'market', which causes slight ambiguity but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It lacks any mention of use cases, exclusions, or sibling tools such as get_prices for current data. The only implicit hint is the word 'historical', but no explicit direction is given.

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