market_coingecko_contract_market_chart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get historical market data' and does not disclose what data fields are returned, the maximum time range supported by 'days', or any rate limits/pagination behavior. This is insufficient for a market data endpoint.

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 that immediately conveys the core function. It wastes no words, though the brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral context.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description fails to specify what historical market data is included (prices, volumes, market cap) or the response format. Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate, but instead it remains vague and incomplete for an agent deciding whether this tool meets a user's request.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond restating 'contract address' and does not enhance understanding of 'platform', 'days', or 'vsCurrency'. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 historical market data') and the resource ('a token by contract address'), making it distinct from other chart tools that use coin IDs. However, it could be more specific about what 'market data' includes (e.g., price, volume, market cap), leaving some ambiguity.

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 usage when you have a contract address rather than a coin ID, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like market_coingecko_coin_market_chart or defi_get_token_price_history. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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