get_historical_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing the null behavior for moving averages when history is insufficient. It also clearly states what is returned. It stops short of describing error scenarios or data conventions, but for a read-only summary tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and clearly separated into Args and Returns. Every sentence contributes useful information with 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential inputs, the output contents, and an important edge case. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing error behavior or the exact structure/format of the returned values, but an agent has enough to call it correctly in the common case.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by defining both parameters: ticker with concrete examples and period with an explicit list of allowed values. It does not mention the default period or units for return, but enough meaning is added for correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Get a summarized price history for one ticker," followed by the concrete outputs (moving averages, high/low, return). The "for one ticker" scope also helps distinguish it from siblings like compare_assets.

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 intended use is implied by the description: use this when you need a historical price summary for a single ticker. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or explains when to prefer get_quote or compare_assets, so the guidance is only implicit.

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