BIST hisse günlük fiyat geçmişi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context on top: data is end-of-day rather than live, it originates from a single broker (a source-reliability caveat), and the default window is 30 days. No statement contradicts the annotations.

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 entry is compact and front-loaded, packing purpose, field list, behavioral caveats, and default range into a single paragraph. The bilingual Turkish/English restatement is mildly redundant but serves multilingual agents, and no sentence is 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only safety profile, the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: default range, data freshness, and source limitation. Minor niceties like symbol casing are already handled by the schema's kod examples.

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 already documents kod, bitis, and baslangic with formats, examples, and defaults. The description merely confirms the default 30-day range already stated in the schema; it adds no new parameter semantics.

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 names a precise operation: retrieving daily end-of-day prices for a specific Borsa İstanbul stock (kod). It enumerates exact return fields (close, weighted average, intraday low/high, TL volume, market value, plus the same day's BIST 100 close and USD/TRY rate), making the tool's scope unmistakable. No sibling tool covers stock price history, so it is clearly distinguishable from the rest.

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 conveys useful context — data is end-of-day, not real-time, and reflects a single brokerage's publication — which sets expectations about when this tool is appropriate. However, it stops short of naming alternatives or giving explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions; the 'not real-time' note is the only implicit exclusion.

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