google_finance_chart

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool returns data and accepts a window, but lacks details on data granularity (e.g., intraday for '1d'), rate limits, or whether the data is historical or real-time. This leaves the agent uncertain about the exact behavior.

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 very concise with two short sentences and no unnecessary words. However, the structure could be improved by front-loading the main action and using a clearer format.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain the return format, but it only says 'normalized chart points' without specifics (e.g., fields like date, open, high, low, close, volume). The tool has many siblings, but no differentiation is provided. The description feels incomplete for an agent to fully understand usage.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'quote' and 'window' already described in detail. The description merely echoes these parameters without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 it returns 'normalized chart points for a quote and window,' indicating a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from other google_finance tools like google_finance_quote (which likely returns current data) by specifying chart data. However, it doesn't define 'normalized chart points' or the output format.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yahoo_finance_ticker_history or google_finance_company. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or context for selection.

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