carry_history

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 reveals the cost ('PAID (~$0.02 USDC)'), the data source ('carrydesk's own published snapshots'), and the timeframe ('archived'), which are key behavioral traits. It does not detail return format or failure modes, but for a simple historical data retrieval, this is sufficient transparency.

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 exactly two sentences: the first front-loads the cost and the core functionality, the second gives a practical usage guide. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. The structure is highly efficient.

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 with only two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential purpose, cost, and usage scenario. It doesn't describe return values or pagination, but those are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema requirement. The sibling context is implicit in the use-case wording.

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%, so the description must compensate. It refers to 'one coin' which aligns with the required 'coin' parameter, but it does not explain the 'days' parameter beyond the schema's default. Since the parameters are simple and the description at least hints at the coin concept, it provides minimal added value but not enough to fully cover the 0% schema gap.

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 provides 'Archived rank and trailing funding history for one coin', which identifies both the resource (rank and trailing funding history) and the scope (one coin). The verb 'Use to check' clarifies the intended action. This distinguishes it from siblings like carry_snapshot (current data) and carry_rankings (rankings across coins).

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 gives a specific use case: 'to check whether a coin's carry is persistent or a one-day artifact.' This implies using it when you need historical context rather than a current snapshot. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling context and the specificity of the use case provide clear guidance.

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