get_digest_history

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the paid nature ($0.05 via x402), the compute-first/settle-after model, that errors are never charged, and the behavior without a PRIVATE_KEY (returns 402 price terms). This is comprehensive behavioral context.

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 dense but not overly long; it front-loads payment info before purpose. All content is relevant, but the structure could be improved by stating the primary function first. Still, no wasted sentences.

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 lacking an output schema, the description covers the tool's scope, cost, auth requirements, error handling, and example usage, making it fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke 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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds a concrete usage example (hours=24, limit=6) that clarifies typical parameter values, though it doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns historical Polymarket Intelligence Digests with a 7-day lookback and 4-hour cadence, using a specific verb+resource. The 'historical' aspect differentiates it from sibling tools like get_digest and get_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 implies usage for tracking how prediction-market narratives evolved and provides an example (hours=24, limit=6), but does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings or when not to use it.

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