get_coin_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return format ('timestamp and price pairs') but does not elaborate on other aspects like data source, rate limits, or handling of non-stablecoin tickers. This is adequate for a simple read operation but not rich.

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, succinct sentence that directly states the function, scope, and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read tool with only two parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and output format, and the schema handles parameter details. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and a detailed output structure, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema already fully describes both parameters (ticker and days) with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond reinforcing the stablecoin scope, so it does not improve on the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('historical price data'), and scopes it to 'a specific stablecoin.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market or get_coin_metadata by emphasizing the historical aspect.

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 phrase 'suitable for sparklines or charts' provides a clear usage context, indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, slightly limiting the guidance.

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