get_composite_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states that it returns 'historical composite index values' and defines the days parameter. It does not disclose details like time granularity, ordering, handling of invalid days, or other behavioral traits. The description mostly reiterates obvious 'get history' semantics without adding deeper context.

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, leading with the core purpose, then briefly listing arguments and return. Every sentence earns its place without wasted words, and the structured Args/Returns format improves scannability.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, output schema exists), and the description covers the main purpose and parameter. However, it lacks context about the data granularity, timezone, or how the history is structured beyond 'values', which could be useful for an AI agent. The description is adequate but not rich enough for a high score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly defines the only parameter 'days' with a range (1-90) and default (30), adding meaning beyond the bare schema property. This fully clarifies the parameter's purpose and valid inputs.

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 explicitly states 'Get SIT-Composite index history / trend over time,' which clearly identifies the resource (SIT-Composite index), the action (get history/trend), and the temporal scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_composite_latest by emphasizing 'history / trend over time' rather than a current value.

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 implies a use case (need historical data), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_composite_latest, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions. No direct 'use this instead of X' guidance is provided, leaving the AI to infer from the name/description.

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