Get Historical Data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the data is raw OHLCV, whether it is adjusted, what timezone the timestamps use, whether pagination or limits apply, or whether the call is read-only. 'Basic metrics' is too vague to convey meaningful 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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. 'With basic metrics' adds little and could mislead an agent into thinking this returns derived metrics rather than raw price data.

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 nested params object, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'basic metrics' are, what the output contains, or how this relates to sibling analysis tools. An agent would need to guess at the return shape and parameter semantics.

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, but it only says 'basic metrics' and does not explain the params object, symbol, interval, or hours_back. The schema itself has minimal descriptions ('Timeframe', 'Hours of history'), so the agent gets little help understanding valid values or semantics.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Get historical price data') but is vague about what 'basic metrics' means. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_technical_indicators or get_vol_surface_metrics, which also sound like data retrieval tools.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context such as 'use for OHLCV data' or 'use get_technical_indicators for derived indicators.'

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