Get historical risk trend for a Solana token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the call is free, unmetered, has no quota, works with or without an API key, performs no live upstream call, and is a pure read from stored history. This materially tells an agent what side effects and constraints to expect without needing annotations.

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 the core behavior and return contents front-loaded, followed by essential operational context (free, unmetered, no auth needed, no live upstream call). Every clause adds distinct information and none is redundant with the schema.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read-only tool, and the description fully covers what an agent needs to call it correctly: the parameters are schema-documented, the return values are enumerated, and the operational traits (cost, auth, quota, live-call behavior) are disclosed. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit field list.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the hourly granularity, the exact returned data fields, and the 90-day cap context. It does not repeat schema descriptions, making it a genuine semantic supplement rather than a restatement.

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 names a specific action ('Returns hourly historical data points'), a concrete resource (a mint), and a precise time window (last N days, max 90). The enumerated fields (safety_score, insider_cluster_count, holder_count, price, liquidity, volume) make the tool's output unmistakable, and the phrase 'historical risk trend' clearly distinguishes it from current-risk checkers.

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 positions this as the tool for historical trends rather than current checks, and the sibling names check_token_risk and check_token_risk_batch reinforce that contrast. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of X', but the historical-vs-current distinction is sufficiently clear from the description and title.

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