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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rolling 7-day window, price+indicator content, and single-market scope, which is useful. However, it does not mention any caveats like whether the history is adjusted, whether it returns empty for new markets, or any rate limits. For a read-only get tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the key function and scope. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information. It is efficiently structured.

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 simple single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates what data will be returned (price+indicator history over 7 days). It doesn't need to detail the output structure since the tool name and usage context imply a time-series response. Could mention indicator names but not required for completeness.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the only parameter (ticker: 'Market ticker'). The tool description adds no new parameter details beyond what the schema offers. 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 clearly states the tool retrieves rolling 7-day price and indicator history for a single market, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market_detail or get_market_diff. It uses the verb 'Get' with a precise resource and scope. Could be a 5 if it explicitly named a sibling or further differentiated from get_technical, but it's already clear.

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 phrase 'For trajectory questions and chart rendering' gives a clear usage context. This helps an agent decide when to use this tool (e.g., when needing time-series data for a chart). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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