get_price_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only lists parameter values and examples, without noting any limitations (e.g., interval restrictions, data adjustments, or rate limits). This is minimal behavioral context for a data retrieval tool.

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 compact, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by an args list. Every line earns its place, and the format is easy to scan, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 description covers the essential purpose and parameter values, but lacks usage guidance and behavioral caveats. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the description does not fully prepare the agent for when to use this tool versus siblings, making it adequate but not complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds value by listing allowed values for 'period' and 'interval' and providing an example for 'ticker'. However, it does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., which intervals work with which periods) or the meaning of each period/interval, so the semantics are only partially enriched.

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 'Get historical OHLCV price data for a stock', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_stock_price (which likely provides current prices) by explicitly mentioning 'historical' and 'OHLCV'.

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 that this tool is used for historical price data but does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no direct comparison to siblings like get_stock_price or get_stock_info, so the usage context is only implicit.

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