get_crypto_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (OHLC) and supported currencies, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination limits, error behavior, or how limit and period interact. For a low-risk read tool this is adequate but thin.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action (returns historical OHLC data) front-loaded before the use case and examples. Efficient, though the example list adds little beyond the schema's own examples.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the return payload; it names OHLC and the currency but does not describe the record structure or date fields. Combined with 4 parameters and no annotations, the definition is workable but leaves the agent guessing about the response.

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 schema already documents coin, limit, period, and vsCurrency. The description's mention of USD/TRY and example coin names duplicates schema content rather than adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns a cryptocurrency's historical price (OHLC) data, with the currency scope (USD/TRY) and example coins. An agent can distinguish it from get_crypto_price (spot) and get_multi_crypto_price, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'grafik/teknik analiz için uygundur' (suitable for charting/technical analysis) implies a usage context, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus get_crypto_price or get_technical_indicators. Usage must be inferred from the resource name.

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