get_price_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important traits: read-only, free, no API key required. What is missing is failure behavior (invalid slug), rate limits, and how the N-hour window interacts with the 720-hour cap that only appears in the schema.

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?

Two compact segments with zero filler; the read-only/free/no-key facts and the slug provenance are front-loaded, and the return shape follows immediately. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly spends its words describing the return shape (5-minute points of two price series over N hours), which is the key gap to fill. It leaves the network default ('server default') and the relationship to the 720-hour bound unexplained, but nothing blocking for a 3-parameter read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents slug, hours, and network. The description adds 'over the last N hours' which ties semantically to the hours parameter and repeats the slug source, but contributes no format or default details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Price history of one market venue') and pins the scope to a single venue with stated granularity ('5-minute points of the 1-hour and 1-day price'). It distinguishes itself from get_prices/get_market_summary by being historical and per-venue, but it never names a sibling alternative, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite path: fetch the slug from get_market, with the concrete 'tenergy' value for the operator's own venue. It also signals the cost/auth posture ('free, no API key'), which tells the agent it is always safe to call. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it versus get_prices.

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