get_card_price_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important behavioral trait — values that are historically unavailable return null rather than errors or zeroes — which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't address pagination, time range, currency, or rate limiting, leaving gaps for a tool fetching history.

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 a statement plus a semantically important caveat. Zero waste; every word earns its place. The null-unavailability note is front-loaded and information-dense.

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?

The tool has an output schema that presumably documents return structure, and a single simple parameter, so completeness burden is modest. The description covers the most important behavioral caveat (nulls for unavailable data) and the Pro-tier restriction. However, it doesn't clarify currency basis, time granularity, or data range, which could be relevant for a price-history 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 0%, meaning the only parameter 'card_id' is entirely undocumented in the schema. The description does not add semantic detail about card_id (format, what IDs are accepted, relationship to resolve_card IDs). Baseline is 3 per the rubric given no param info in description and a single simple parameter, but the description adds zero value for the parameter itself.

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 Pro price snapshots' uses a specific verb (Get), names the resource (price snapshots/history for a card), and adds a useful qualifier ('Pro' tier). The unavailability semantics ('unavailable historical values remain null') provide scoping detail. While it distinguishes itself reasonably from 'get_card_prices' by referencing 'history' vs. current prices implicitly, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so not a full 5.

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 the tool reads price history but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives like get_card_prices, compare_card_prices, or get_top_cards. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is offered, and the Pro-tier requirement is mentioned but not framed as a prerequisite/exclusion.

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