crypto_coin_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the data source (CoinGecko) but fails to state that this is a read-only operation, lacks rate limit info, error handling, or any side effects. The description is too minimal.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices essential details for brevity, making it underspecified for a tool with no annotations. It could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.

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 the absence of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about expected return data (e.g., price history format), the meaning of 'id', and usage notes. It currently omits these, leaving the agent with incomplete information to use the tool effectively.

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 schema covers only one of two parameters (date format). The description does not elaborate on the 'id' parameter (e.g., what it represents, how to obtain it), nor does it clarify the date format beyond the schema's description. Since schema coverage is borderline low (50%), the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 retrieves historical price data for a cryptocurrency, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('historical price data'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like crypto_price (current price) and crypto_trending by emphasizing 'historical'.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The tool does not mention alternatives like crypto_price for current data or how to determine the correct 'id' parameter, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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