get_set_price_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies this is a read operation retrieving aggregate value over time, but does not detail the response format or any constraints. However, the behavior is adequately implied for a simple retrieval tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the main purpose in the first sentence, and adds optional behavior and alternative in the second. Every word serves a purpose with zero wasted text.

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 low-complexity tool with 2 parameters (100% documented) and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the core functionality, optional parameter, and sibling tool differentiation, covering all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, providing baseline at 3. The description adds no new information beyond stating the purpose of 'days' to limit the window, which is already present in the schema. Minimal added value over 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 clearly states the tool retrieves price history for a whole set by set code, specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'price history'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_card_price_history' by explicitly directing users to that tool for single card history.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Get price history for a whole set') and when not to ('For a single card's history use get_card_price_history'), along with an optional parameter ('Optionally limit the window with days').

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