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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure. It discloses the core behavior (unadjusted for splits) and the returned fields (open, high, low, close, volume). However, it does not cover other aspects like data granularity, pagination, or response format, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 sentences, with the first sentence clearly front-loading the core purpose. The second sentence is somewhat redundant ('without split-related changes' repeats the unadjusted theme) and includes generic marketing language ('accurate insights'), preventing a higher score.

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 description sufficiently explains what data is returned (OHLCV) and the unadjusted nature, which is the key differentiator. With 3 parameters and no output schema, it provides enough context for tool selection, though it omits details like time series structure or date range behavior seen in siblings.

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 complete descriptions for all three parameters (symbol, from, to) including date formats, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides 'stock price and volume data without adjustments for stock splits' via the 'FMP Unadjusted Stock Price Chart API.' This distinguishes it from adjusted chart tools like getDividendAdjustedChart, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 usage when unadjusted data is needed, emphasizing 'without adjustments' and 'without split-related changes.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, keeping it slightly below full guidance.

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