fmp_historical_prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavior: omitting from_date returns the full history, which is 'large'. However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination, error handling, or output size limits. The warning adds value but leaves other potential side-effects undisclosed.

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 a compact docstring with a one-line summary and a clean Args list. Each parameter gets a single line with essential details. No redundant sentences; every clause provides value.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers core behavior (OHLCV, intervals, symbol types) and the full-flag variation. It lacks edge-case guidance (e.g., date range validation) but is adequate for a data-retrieval tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all 5 parameters: symbol Types, date format, interval enumeration, and the full flag's effect on columns. It adds meaningful context (e.g., from_date warning) beyond the bare schema titles, compensating well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Historical OHLCV data' with specific resource types (ticker, index, crypto, FX pair). It distinguishes from siblings like fmp_dividends and fmp_earnings by focusing on price data. The verb is implicit ('retrieve') but the intent is unambiguous.

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 explains symbol types and interval options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fmp_quote for current prices or fmp_technical_indicator for derived data. There is no exclusion or alternative naming, leaving usage context implicit.

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