Get historical risk trend for a Solana token

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 explicitly notes 'pure read from stored history, no live upstream call' and mentions quota behavior, which are valuable beyond what the schema offers. It also discloses hourly granularity and the 90-day maximum, providing good transparency for a read-only 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: the first front-loads the core behavior (what is returned and scope), the second adds quota and read-only context. It is concise, well-structured, and avoids repeating schema details.

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 tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate completeness by listing the returned data points, the time range, and quota behavior. It does not cover error cases or prerequisites, but these are minor for this read-only tool.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, including the default and maximum for 'days'. The description adds context about hourly data points and the fields returned, but does not significantly enhance the semantic meaning of the parameters themselves, so a 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 states 'Returns hourly historical data points... for a mint over the last N days (max 90)', clearly identifying the verb, resource, and scope. The title 'historical risk trend' and sibling names (check_token_risk) distinguish it from current-risk tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies usage for retrieving historical trends and adds useful context that it does not count against the quota. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over sibling tools like check_token_risk, though the contrast with current-risk checks is evident from naming and description.

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