get_mempool_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the tool provides historical snapshots (rolling 24h) and mentions cost. However, it fails to disclose termination behavior (e.g., what happens if no payment or API key is missing), rate limits, or response structure.

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?

Single sentence with key information (rolling snapshots, cost). No wasted words; front-loaded with core purpose.

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 tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers primary function and cost. However, lacks detail on snapshot count, granularity, and expected response, leaving some gaps for full autonomous use.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds a tiny bit about 'only needed if no API key set' but does not significantly extend beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states 'Rolling 24h snapshots of mempool size and fees', specifying the resource (mempool snapshots) and attributes (size, fees). It distinguishes from siblings like get_mempool_state (current state) and get_fees (current fees) by indicating historical data.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_mempool_state or predict_fees. The only note is a cost hint ('50 sats per call'), but no explicit context or exclusions.

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