ultrade_market_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get market history' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify any traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what 'history' includes (e.g., candles, volume). This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded to convey the core purpose immediately. There's no wasted verbiage, making it efficient for quick scanning, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'market history' returns (e.g., OHLC data), how to interpret parameters like 'interval', or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with multiple parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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%, with all parameters clearly documented in the schema (e.g., 'symbol' as market symbol, 'interval' as resolution). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining typical interval values or format implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get market history' clearly states the action (get) and resource (market history), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what 'market history' entails (e.g., OHLC candles, trades) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'ultrade_market_last_trades' or 'ultrade_market_price', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'ultrade_market_last_trades' (likely for recent trades) and 'ultrade_market_price' (likely for current prices), there's no indication of how this tool differs, such as for historical data over a range versus real-time updates.

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