market_coingecko_coin_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes price, market cap, and volume for a single date, which is useful. However, it omits details like timezone handling, exact response structure, or implications of the localization parameter, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately concise for a simple read tool.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with 100% schema coverage and a clear one-sentence description, the information is mostly complete for selection and invocation. The main gaps are the lack of usage guidance and some behavioral nuance, but these are not critical for a straightforward historical data lookup.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (id, date, localization), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter-level nuance beyond naming the data categories returned, meeting the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and specifies the resource ('historical coin data') with the key qualifier 'for a specific date,' which differentiates it from range-based chart tools. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the purpose is 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like market_coingecko_coin_market_chart or market_coingecko_coin_ohlc. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name/description alone.

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