Historical prices

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

Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It adds meaningful context: price is in [0,1] probability, the tool provides sub-minute precision, and the data is aligned to order book depth. It does not describe output pagination or exact return shape, but not a keiner gap for this read-only price data 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is slightly verbose in the comparison sentence, but every clause adds value to the stories all relevant decision and semantic information. Might be trimmed slightly without losing content.

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 description handles when-to-use and data semantics well, but there is no output schema and no description of return-format details such as the list structure of per-outcome price points, cursor pagination behavior, or limit implications. Input parameters are well covered in the schema, so not critical, but the absent output narrative leaves some room for ambiguity.

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 83%, so by baseline it is a 3. The description adds no direct parameter-specific details beyond implying fine-grained resolution; the input schema already covers parameter defaults, limits, ISO timestamps, and resolution enum.

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?

States the resource (outcome token price series over time) and core semantic (prices are probabilities). It distinguishes the tool from Polymarket's public API and implicitly from siblings by focusing on finer-than-minute history and alignment with vibrancy and order-book timeline.

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?

Explicitly identifies when to use this tool: finer than one-minute buckets, or timelines aligned to order book depth. It also says not to use it for 1-minute or coarser history alone, directing to the Polymarket public API as an equivalent alternative.

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