market_get_coin_chart

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-only historical retrieval, but does not describe the output format (e.g., price points vs OHLCV), data granularity, timezone handling, or any rate limitations, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 front-loads the action and object. It contains no redundant words and is highly scannable, earning a top score.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers invocation details. However, the absence of return-value specifics and lack of comparison to similar chart tools prevent a perfect score.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage, including descriptions for coinId and an enum for period. The description adds minimal value beyond restating that time ranges are supported, so a baseline 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 resource ('historical chart data for a cryptocurrency'), with a specific qualifier ('with different time ranges'). It distinguishes itself from simple price lookup tools like market_get_coin_avg_price by emphasizing chart data, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar chart tools like defi_get_token_chart.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as defi_get_token_chart or market_coingecko_coin_market_chart. There are no use-case hints, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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