get_balance_history_data

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by specifying return fields (timestamps, USD/BTC values, deposit amounts). However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like data freshness, pagination, or rate limiting. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with a clear heading, structured Args section, and Returns section. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to parse.

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 covers the main points: purpose, parameters, and return fields. With an output schema existing, it doesn't need to detail return structure. However, it could mention constraints like date range limits or pagination. Overall, it is mostly 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 0%, so the description carries full burden. It explains all 4 parameters: date_from (ISO format), account_id (integer or 'summary'), date_to (optional), and response_filter (full or display). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type/default annotations.

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 'Get account balance history over time' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_account_info (which gives account details, not history) and get_dca_bot_profit_data (profit data vs. balance 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or compare to sibling tools like get_account_info for account-level data. Usage is implied but not clarified.

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