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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return envelope structure, parameter defaults, accepted ticker formats, and cost per call. It does not mention error handling or data adjustments, but these are not critical for a read-only historical data tool.

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 compact and well-structured, starting with purpose, then parameter specifics, return format, and cost. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 and moderate complexity, the description fully explains the response envelope, parameter options with defaults, and symbol conventions. It is self-contained, allowing an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.

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%, and the description effectively documents all parameters. It explains ticker formatting, enumerates interval and range values (matching the schema enums), and adds default values, going beyond the raw schema.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves historical OHLCV price bars for a ticker. Explicitly describes the scope (historical) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on price history rather than quotes or fundamentals.

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?

Provides clear context about the tool's purpose and output, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_quote or compute_indicator. However, the description of OHLCV data and parameter defaults strongly implies when it should be used.

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