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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: what each view returns (daily OHLCV, latest quote, intraday bars) and a constraint that 1m intraday is only for US exchanges.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and view semantics, then the alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 8 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the key usage dimensions (view modes, interval, sibling alternative). It omits mention of optional batch parameter 'multi', but the schema handles that adequately.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema—it mentions interval for intraday, but the schema already covers that and more.

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 states the resource ('Prices for SYMBOL.EXCHANGE') and details the three view modes, clearly indicating what the tool returns. It distinguishes from sibling prices_relative_move, but does not use an explicit verb and only differentiates from one sibling among many.

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?

It gives clear context for each view (eod, live, intraday) and explicitly routes unusual-move queries to prices_relative_move. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or mention other alternatives like market_lastday.

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