crypto_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Get cryptocurrency historical price data' with no mention of defaults (e.g., 30-day range), intervals, output format, or read-only nature. This lack of context could lead an agent to assume incorrect behavior, especially regarding data granularity and time range.

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 a single, concise sentence with zero redundancy. It states the core functionality without filler, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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 fully documented parameters and an output schema present, the description only needs to convey purpose and basic usage context. However, it lacks explicit usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, making it minimally viable but not comprehensive. The gaps in when-to-use and expected behavior prevent a higher score.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (start, end, symbol, interval) having a clear description and default. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics, so the 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 'Get cryptocurrency historical price data' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('cryptocurrency historical price data'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like stock_history, fx_history, and world_index_history. It unambiguously identifies the tool's primary function without requiring inference.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for cryptocurrencies specifically, nor does it reference sibling tools like stock_history or fx_history. The user must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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