Market price/volume history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is PAID (~$0.01), which is critical behavioral information. It also mentions the data granularity (daily buckets) and normalization (YES side), which adds transparency about the output. However, it does not describe rate limits, auth requirements, or what 'recent prints' means exactly, but the paid note is a significant disclosure.

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 sentence that packs essential information: cost, data type, granularity, normalization, and parameters. It is front-loaded with the PAID warning, which is critical for decision-making. No wasted words; every element earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, cost, data format, and parameters. It could mention what 'recent prints' means or the output structure, but since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on the return format would be helpful. However, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 does: it explains the window parameter with its enum values (7d|30d|all, default 30d) and the condition_id parameter (identifies the market). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, which only lists the parameters without context. The description effectively documents both parameters.

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 price/volume history for one Polymarket market in daily buckets, normalized to the YES side, plus recent prints. It specifies the resource (one market) and the verb (get history), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like predge_whale_market or predge_markets_movers by focusing on a single market's price/volume history.

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 implies usage for retrieving historical market data for a specific condition_id, with a window parameter. It does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, but the focus on a single market's daily price/volume history is clear enough to differentiate from siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the context is clear.

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