Get commodity time series

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the daily frequency and the 1-year maximum range, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not explain what happens on errors, missing data, or how invalid symbols are handled (though that is covered in the schema parameter description).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes the key constraint with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete but lacks explicit sibling differentiation and does not describe the return structure or error behavior. The schema covers parameter details well, but the tool description alone leaves some gaps.

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 67%, and the description adds the daily frequency and the 1-year range constraint, which are not in the schema. However, it does not compensate fully for the lack of an explicit endDate description, though the $ref provides the format. The added value is moderate.

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 clearly states the tool returns daily historical rates for one or more symbols between two dates, which specifies the verb, resource, and scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_historical_rates', so it loses the point for sibling distinction.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to get daily historical rates for a date range, with the explicit constraint that the range cannot exceed 1 year. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context alone is sufficient to guide selection.

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