dv_market_history

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses real behavior: sampling is capped at one point per UTC day, history begins only at first recording, and composition changes are explicitly not treated as item-price changes. These are meaningful caveats an agent cannot derive from the annotations alone.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the caveats trailing. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence is compact to the point of being cryptic about how composition changes relate to price data.

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 tool whose main parameter is an 18-field nested search request, the description supplies almost no guidance on scoping the request or interpreting the returned history. The output schema covers return values, but the input side and the relationship to dv_price_history remain unexplained.

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 0% and the `request` parameter is a large nested SearchRequest object (city, sort, limit, pages, filters, constraints, price bounds, etc.) with no field documentation anywhere. The description only implicitly touches the `record` flag via the record/read duality and never explains what `request` controls.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Record one asking-price sample per UTC day or read saved points,' making the dual write/read nature clear. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling dv_price_history, leaving the agent to guess which price-history tool to pick.

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 two modes ('record' vs 'read saved points') are named, implying the `record` flag selects the path, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g. dv_price_history). Usage is only inferable.

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