moex_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: data freshness (only up to the previous day), the special weekend-session-volume-merges-into-Monday rule, the extra bond fields (ACCINT, YIELDCLOSE, DURATION, COUPONPERCENT), and index support. It does not disclose pagination or the CSV-vs-inline cutoff 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 purpose is front-loaded and the dense enumeration of output columns and special cases (weekend aggregation, bond fields, indices) all carry information. It is a single, information-rich passage with little waste, though the long column list is somewhat heavy for a description.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and 67% schema coverage, the description does well by explaining the returned columns, which compensates for the missing output schema. However it does not clarify the roles of undocumented params (board, all_boards, secid) nor route between the near-identical moex_history_by_date sibling, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 67%, so most parameters (start, end, columns, filename, save_csv, max_inline_rows) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning — it enumerates return columns, not inputs — so the baseline of 3 is appropriate for the partially-documented schema.

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 specific verb+resource: daily trading results (TRADEDATE/OPEN/HIGH/LOW/CLOSE/VOLUME etc.) for a security, with a clear scope of 'up to yesterday'. It is clearly distinguishable from moex_candles and moex_quote by the daily-bar granularity, but it never names the very similar sibling moex_history_by_date, leaving that distinction to inference.

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 rather than stated: 'up to yesterday' signals a historical daily-series use case and it notes it also works for indices (IMOEX, RGBI). However there is no explicit when-to-use vs moex_history_by_date/moex_candles, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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