get_stats_history

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

The description discloses the ring buffer nature (implying limited history) and the maximum number of points (3600). It also clarifies that no credentials are needed. Given no annotations, this is good transparency, though it could mention data freshness or rate limits.

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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose and follows with key details. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and efficient.

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?

While the description explains the ring buffer and point limit, it does not describe the output format (e.g., timestamps and throughput values). Given no output schema, this omission leaves the agent without full understanding of the return structure.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly indicates that no credentials are needed, which is the only relevant contextual info. Baseline score of 4 applies per guidelines.

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 the venue's per-second throughput history, specifies it's a ring buffer with up to 3600 points, and notes it is public. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stats or get_service_status.

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 indicates the tool is public and requires no credentials, which provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_stats), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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