Retrieve local Chainlink price history with 30/60-second TWAP windows for BTC, ETH, SOL, and XRP from a Unix timestamp.
Historial LOCAL recibido de Chainlink; ventana TWAP 30/60s, since Unix UTC. Sin datos previos inventados.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| window | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: data originates from Chainlink, is local, is TWAP-windowed at 30/60 seconds, uses Unix UTC for 'since', and is not synthetic/invented. No contradiction with annotations.
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 very short with no filler; each clause adds a distinct piece of information. It is slightly fragmentary and mixes Spanish with an English timestamp phrase, but the structure is compact and front-loaded enough for quick parsing.
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?
With no output schema, the description should clarify what the caller receives. It gives important input conventions and data quality guarantees, but it does not describe the returned payload shape, units, ordering, or how 'limit' affects the result. For a price-history endpoint, these are material gaps.
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 explains 'window' as a TWAP window in seconds and 'since' as Unix UTC, and the asset enum is self-documenting. However, 'limit' is not explained, and '30/60s' is ambiguous about accepted values or default behavior, leaving part of the parameter surface underspecified.
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 tool name supplies the action ('get') and the description identifies the resource as Chainlink-sourced price history with a TWAP window, making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly state 'returns historical price data' in a full sentence, and it does not differentiate among sibling history/snapshot tools, so it stops short of 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Phrases like 'LOCAL' and 'no invented previous data' hint at characteristics, but the sibling list includes several plausible competitors (get_market_snapshot, get_market_context, get_trade_history) with no routing conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.