token_safety_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is paid ($0.01 via x402) and that it returns historical snapshots, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or what happens if the token has no history. The pricing disclosure is a positive behavioral detail, but other behavioral aspects are missing.

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. The pricing sentence is a necessary disclosure for a paid tool and is placed at the end, which is acceptable. No wasted words, though the pricing could be considered secondary to the main 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the paid nature. However, it lacks details about the response format, pagination, or how to handle tokens without history. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the mint parameter as a Solana mint address (base58). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns historical safety analyses for a token, with each snapshot containing risk, warnings, critical risks, and holder metrics. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from the sibling tools like token_safety (current safety) and holder_analysis (holder metrics).

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 safety data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus token_safety or holder_analysis. It mentions the snapshot contents, which helps an agent infer the use case, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tool references.

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