defi_get_token_price_history

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does without revealing any behavioral traits such as data source, caching behavior, response format, or limitations. The agent is left without critical context about what the returned price represents or how reliable it is.

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 that immediately communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler, making it an excellent example of minimal but effective description.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, the description does not specify the return format (e.g., price in USD, numeric value) or handle edge cases like invalid timestamps or unsupported chains. Gaps in behavioral transparency and usage guidance prevent it from being fully complete for an agent operating among many similar price-related tools.

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%, with clear descriptions for both 'coin' and 'timestamp'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('historical price for a token') with a specific qualifier ('at a specific timestamp'). This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools that provide price ranges, current prices, or multi-token prices, making 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 qualifier 'at a specific timestamp' implies the use case for a single point-in-time query, but the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for a price range, use defi_get_token_chart' or 'for current prices, use defi_get_token_prices'. Given the large number of sibling tools, more explicit guidance would be helpful.

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