get_card_price_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the data retention behavior (30-day daily, older weekly/monthly) but omits details on authentication, rate limits, or what happens when no data exists. This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the additional sentence adds valuable context about data retention without redundancy.

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 covers what data is returned (30-day history with older aggregated data) but lacks information about output format or structure. Since there is no output schema, the description should hint at the response shape; its absence makes it slightly incomplete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the parameter names and descriptions already in 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?

The description specifies the verb 'Get', resource 'price history', and scope '30-day' with detail on normal + foil printing. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_card_prices (current prices) and get_card_performance (longer-term performance).

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 recent 30-day history, added by the note on older data retention. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_card_prices or get_card_performance, nor does it mention 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.