Multi-day intraday bars for one ticker (interval 3-240 min, default 3m). Every bar carries absolute open/high/low/close plus fractional change from that day's own open — percentages reset daily, not cumulative. $0.01/day, no day limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | End date YYYY-MM-DD | |
| start | Yes | Start date YYYY-MM-DD | |
| ticker | Yes | Stock ticker (e.g. AAPL) | |
| interval | No | Bar interval in minutes: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 30, 60, or 240 (default 3) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral detail: fractional change is calculated from that day's own open and resets daily, not cumulative. It also states the cost and no day limit, but omits result format, timezone, or rate limits.
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 exceptionally concise, using three sentences to cover the core purpose, data semantics, and pricing. It is front-loaded with the main use case and contains no fluff or repeated schema content.
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 no output schema or annotations, the description does a solid job explaining the data content (OHLC plus daily-reset fractional change) and the query scope. It omits minor details like date inclusivity or timezone handling, but is adequate for tool selection and invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only a summary of interval range and default, which duplicates the schema's enumerated list, providing no significant extra semantics.
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 identifies the tool as providing multi-day intraday bars for one ticker, with interval range and default specified. It distinguishes from sibling tools by scope ('one ticker', 'multi-day') but lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'fetches'.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: for multi-day intraday bars for a single ticker, with pricing and no day limit. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the scope is strongly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools overlap significantly: get_bars, query_minute_bars, query_range, and query_batch all provide intraday bar data, making it hard to distinguish when to use which. Additionally, get_brief and get_fundamentals overlap in fundamentals coverage. The descriptions do not clearly delineate boundaries between these tools.
The naming pattern is a mix of get_* and query_* prefixes, with list_ and scan_ as exceptions. While each individual name is readable, similar operations like get_bars and query_minute_bars use different verbs, making the overall convention inconsistent.
15 tools is a reasonable count for a comprehensive financial data server, covering market data, fundamentals, filings, insiders, and scanning. The count is not excessive, though the overlapping intraday bar tools suggest some redundancy that could be consolidated.
The tool surface is fairly complete for its domain, offering intraday and daily market data, fundamentals, SEC filings, insider transactions, company profiles, and market scanning. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated dividend/split tool), but these are not critical and can be worked around via existing tools like get_brief.