get_prices

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

The description discloses exactly what the agent will receive: a 'Showing X-Y of Z prices (date range)' lead line, a compact aligned text table by default, a count-only mode with limit=0, and the full structured envelope when verbose=true. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation and provides substantial behavioral context without needing to inspect the output schema.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose first, followed by output behavior, then a clean Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the front-loaded output detail helps the agent know what to expect immediately. No redundant repetition of schema titles or types.

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 8 parameters and only 2 required, the description covers all parameter semantics, date formats, pagination rules, output modes, and special values. Since an output schema exists, return-value structure doesn't need to be restated. The description is fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section fully documents all 8 parameters with concrete examples, formats, defaults, and special behaviors (limit max 250, limit=0 means count only, verbose=true switches output mode). The description compensates completely for the schema's lack of descriptive text.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource: 'Get price history for a commodity.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_latest_price and other price-related tools. The focus on history plus optional date filters makes 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 implies when to use the tool—when price history is needed rather than latest prices—but never explicitly names get_latest_price as the alternative or states when not to use this tool. It does give strong guidance on selecting verbose versus compact output and on pagination behavior, but not on sibling tool selection.

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