prices_daily

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the row granularity, listing currency, default adjustment behavior, the free-tier 12-month cap, and that clipping produces a free_tier_note in the result. It omits auth requirements, pagination, and error behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The parentheticals ('e.g. AAPL', the adjust default, the free-tier note) all carry information, though the second sentence is slightly overloaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does describe the return shape and an extra result field well, and it flags the tier limit. However, with four undocumented-in-schema parameters, the missing start/end semantics leave the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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 document all four parameters. It covers symbol (with an AAPL example) and adjust (splits/dividend, 'splits' by default), but says nothing about start or end — no date format, inclusivity, or defaults — leaving the two filtering parameters undocumented everywhere.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Daily OHLCV bars for a stock symbol') and even spells out the columns returned (open, high, low, close, volume). It is unambiguously a price-history tool, which no sibling covers, although it never explicitly distinguishes itself by name from the fundamental/macro siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain ('daily bars for a symbol') and the free-tier clipping rule gives useful context on when results are trustworthy, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or pointer to any alternative tool.

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