Cboe daily price history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: history length (~20 years), no key required, and symbol formatting syntax, without contradicting 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 description is extremely concise, using two short paragraphs. The first paragraph front-loads purpose and usage context, the second adds symbol details. Every sentence adds unique value with zero 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, data source, key requirement, symbol format, and a specific example. No gaps remain for the intended use 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?

The single 'symbol' parameter is described in the schema as 'Ticker or underscore-prefixed index symbol'. The description adds concrete examples (e.g., 'SPY') and clarifies the underscore prefix rule for indices, going beyond the schema definition. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the extra guidance justifies a 4.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns daily OHLCV price history for equities/ETFs/indexes from Cboe, with up to ~20 years of data. It also positions itself as a Yahoo-independent source, distinguishing from sibling Yahoo data tools.

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?

States 'Use as a Yahoo-independent source for charts/backtests', providing clear context for when to use. It mentions 'No key required' as a usage note, but does not explicitly exclude when not to use or list alternatives beyond the sibling context.

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