get_token_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the 7-day maximum window, pagination, return content (full analysis with backtest results), and the $0.03 cost via x402. This goes beyond the minimal and is highly useful for an agent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then covering filters, return data, and cost. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential decision factors: what the tool does, constraints (time window, pagination), filter options, return content, and cost. It does not describe error cases or the exact output structure, but it provides enough for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly summarizing the filtering dimensions (chain, tier, minScore) and noting the 7-day window constraint, which is not in the schema's parameter descriptions. This helps an agent understand the relationship between parameters and the overall query.

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: retrieving historical token signals within a date range, with additional filtering and pagination. The verb 'Get' plus the specific resource 'historical token signals' differentiates it from siblings like 'get_token_signals' (current signals) and 'get_tokens_latest'.

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 context that this is for historical queries ('by date range'), distinguishing it from real-time signal tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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