get_history_tape

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the Builder+ access requirement and a necessary parameter combination, which is useful. However, it does not describe what the tape returns, whether the operation is read-only, or any error/edge-case 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 entire definition is two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the access/argument constraints are stated immediately afterward.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with three params and no output schema, the description gives the essential input constraints and access restriction. Still, it leaves the return value and typical use context unstated, which an agent may need to invoke it confidently.

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 clearly states the required combination: market_key alone, or prop_id together with book. This adds meaningful relationship semantics beyond the bare parameter names and defaults.

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 states the resource ('quote tape') and the supported targets ('prop/book or market_key'), and the tool name reinforces the history/quote purpose. It is clear enough to distinguish from odds-history or lines-history siblings, though it does not explicitly name a differentiator.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_live_odds_history or get_lines_history. The 'Builder+' and 'Need market_key OR prop_id+book' notes are prerequisites rather than usage context or exclusions.

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