getPriceHistory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the OHLC candles are derived from SDEX trade aggregations, but it does not explain aggregation specifics, empty-result behavior, or response expectations beyond the 'OHLC' term.

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 with no filler; it front-loads the verb and object, and it adds the valuable SDEX context without repeating schema details. Every word 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?

For a four-parameter read tool with fully described schema parameters, this is a functional description. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it still leaves the agent without clear expectations for the output shape, candle ordering, or edge cases like sparse/no trade data.

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 all four parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('OHLC price history for a Stellar asset pair'), and it identifies the data source ('SDEX trade aggregations'). The 'OHLC history' wording helps distinguish this from sibling tools like getPrice and getTradeAggregations, even though no sibling is explicitly named.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus getPrice, getVWAP, or getTradeAggregations. The phrase 'OHLC price history' implies a charting/historical use case, but an agent is left to infer the right choice among several closely related price and trade tools.

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