get_historical

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost of $0.005 USDC, which is a significant behavioral trait not obvious from the name. However, it omits other important behaviors such as rate limits, read-only confirmation, or possible errors. The cost disclosure is useful but incomplete.

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 one short sentence plus a cost note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and omits fluff. Very efficient and 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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description is the sole source of context. It covers what the tool does and its cost but leaves out parameter semantics, return structure, and usage examples. For a tool with three parameters, this is inadequate.

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 fails to explain any of the three parameters (limit, symbol, interval). The word 'candles' hints at the data structure, but no parameter meaning is conveyed. The schema provides defaults and an enum, but the description adds no value in this area.

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 the specific verb and resource: 'Get historical OHLCV candles' and adds the purpose 'for backtesting.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_crypto_prices (current prices) and get_technical_indicators (derived indicators).

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 'for backtesting' implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or contexts where other tools should be used instead. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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