get_intelligence_history

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavioral traits: it is a paid API ($0.03 via x402), settles in USDC on Base, uses compute-first settle-after so errors are free, and requires a PRIVATE_KEY for live calls. This is exceptional transparency, including failure modes and conditional behavior.

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 packs a lot of essential information into two sentences, including payment, historical scope, settlement method, error policy, and key requirements. It is dense but efficient, with no filler; however, the first sentence is somewhat complex with multiple clauses, slightly reducing readability.

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 description thoroughly addresses the tool's complexity: payment, authentication, error handling, and lookback window. It does not describe the return format or digest structure, but given no output schema and the tool's focused purpose, this is a minor omission. Overall, the description is complete enough for effective use.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both hours and limit. The description adds little beyond restating the lookback range (1-168 hours) already present in the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score 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 identifies the tool as providing historical Master Intelligence digests over a 1-168 hour lookback, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_latest. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'get'), relying on the tool name and noun phrase for the action.

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 operational guidance: set PRIVATE_KEY for a live API call, otherwise the call returns 402 price terms. The historical lookback context implies when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_latest, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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