ingest_csv_data

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

Discloses validation, parsing, storage location (state/custom_data/), and file requirement. Annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) align. Could mention error handling or size 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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence defines action, second provides critical context on data availability and requirement.

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?

No output schema, so description should explain side effects or return values. It states storage location but does not mention success/error feedback. However, annotations and schema provide moderate 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 coverage is 100%, so description does not need to add much. It mentions optional column mapping and date defaults, but schema already has similar descriptions. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool ingests CSV OHLCV data, validates columns, parses rows, and stores it for backtesting. It distinguishes from sibling ingest_json_signals by specifying CSV and file requirement.

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?

Explicitly mentions data becomes available for backtesting via run_backtest(data_source='custom') and requires a real file on disk with no synthetic substitution, guiding when to use it. No explicit alternatives but context is sufficient.

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