historical_volume

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

No annotations are present, and the description is a minimal restatement of the tool name, providing no behavioral details such as data granularity, supported time ranges, or return format. It merely says 'get' with no disclosure of side effects, rate limits, or output expectations.

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, direct sentence with no redundant or filler words. It is maximally concise and easy to process.

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?

There is no output schema and no clarification of the scope of 'volume', making the tool incomplete for an agent to select it correctly among the many historical and volume-related siblings. The description lacks essential context about what data is returned or how this tool differs from similar ones.

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 fully documents both parameters (symbol and days) with descriptions, and the description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 resource (historical trading volume data), but it does not specify what kind of volume or asset, making it indistinguishable from sibling tools like historical_ohlcv or defi_get_dex_volume. It is a valid but generic purpose statement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling historical and volume tools, nor what type of volume (token, dex, options) is covered. The description gives no context for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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