Get historical candles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses input quirks: intervals must be spelled out, dates are plain YYYY-MM-DD, 'to' is exclusive, and only 5 scrip codes are allowed. However, it does not describe the response shape or any operational caveats, keeping it at a 3.

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 brief sentences, each necessary: the first states function and scope, the second covers interval formatting, and the third covers date formatting and exclusivity. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

For a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the important calling contract: maximum scrip count, interval spelling, date format, and exclusivity. It could be more complete by explicitly describing the returned candle structure or pagination, but those are implied by 'OHLCV candles'.

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 schema already describes scripCodes, from, to, and the interval enum, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the crucial 'never abbreviated' interval rule and reinforces the inclusive/exclusive date semantics, which adds real value beyond the 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?

The description identifies a specific resource and operation: retrieving historical OHLCV candles for up to 5 scrip codes. 'Historical candles' clearly sets it apart from live-quote/streaming siblings such as get_quotes and stream_quotes, even though those tools are not named explicitly.

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 makes the applicable context clear: use it for historical candle data across up to 5 scrip codes, in contrast to live or streamed market data. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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