social_get_coin_time_series

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns ('historical social metrics') and the time dimension, but does not disclose limitations (e.g., supported time ranges, data source, pagination behavior, default interval if omitted, or whether the data is aggregated). This lack of detail is a transparency gap for a data-retrieval tool.

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 with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 query tool with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks details about the return format, time range handling, or behavior when 'start' or 'end' are omitted. Given the sibling context and absence of an output schema, a bit more context would improve completeness, but the current description is not misleading or grossly inadequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already provides meaningful descriptions for all four parameters (symbol, start, end, interval). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema offers. Baseline score of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not contradict or enrich it.

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 tool's action ('Get'), resource ('historical social metrics for a coin'), and temporal scope ('over time'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like social_get_coin_metrics (which likely returns current metrics) and social_get_feed (posts). It could be more specific about which social metrics are included, but the core purpose is clear.

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 information about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for historical data as opposed to current metrics, nor does it reference sibling tools like social_get_coin_metrics. The 'over time' phrasing implies historical, but there are no explicit exclusions or contextual comparisons.

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