crypto_historical

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns historical price data and lists parameter options, but does not disclose output structure, rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The examples hint at data granularity but not the actual response format, leaving a significant gap.

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 well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a compact parameter list, and two illustrative examples. No filler or redundant content, and the structure front-loads the core 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 historical data tool, the description adequately covers input semantics and valid values, with examples for clarity. It omits details about the output data structure, but since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 provides only parameter names and defaults with no descriptions (0% schema coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: 'symbol' with ticker examples, and listing all valid values for 'period' and 'interval'. This enables the agent to select correct parameter values without ambiguity.

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 begins with 'Get historical cryptocurrency price data' which clearly identifies the action (get historical data) and the resource (cryptocurrency prices). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crypto_price (current price) and stock_historical (stock data), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 historical crypto data retrieval but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like crypto_price or stock_historical, nor does it mention exclusions. The examples clarify how to use it but provide no explicit guidance on tool selection.

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