social_get_market_sentiment_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the resource without revealing response format, limits, or any special behaviors. The minimal description adds no information beyond what the tool name already suggests.

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 clear sentence, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified and could be enriched with additional context without becoming verbose. It is not as minimal as a tautology but lacks substantive detail.

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 has no output schema and minimal description, leaving the agent without information about the return structure or data granularity. The description does not clarify what 'market sentiment' encompasses or any constraints, making it incomplete for a data-retrieval tool.

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 covers both parameters (days and interval) with descriptions and defaults, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. Since the description adds no additional parameter context, the 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 tool retrieves historical market sentiment data, using a specific verb and resource. The word 'historical' distinguishes it from social_get_market_sentiment, though it doesn't explicitly reference siblings.

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 alternatives like social_get_market_sentiment or social_get_news_sentiment. The context of historical data is implied but not explicitly stated as a use case.

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