get_ohlcv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the source (GitHub CSV archive) and the non-broker-feed status, which is important context. However, it omits other relevant behavior such as authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior for invalid tickers, or whether the data is delayed/static, leaving clear gaps.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core action, resource, source, and key caveat are front-loaded and each clause earns its place.

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 full input schema and an output schema, the description only needs to fill domain-specific gaps. It explains the data source and research-only intent, which is useful. It stays thin on when to prefer this over get_quote, but sibling tool names and the tool's own name partially compensate.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with all five parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond 'historical' and 'OHLCV', both already implied by the schema's period enum and tool name.

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 names a specific action ('Get') on a specific resource ('historical OHLCV bars for a BRVM ticker') and identifies the data source. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_quote, which suggests current quotes, so an agent can distinguish this tool without opening schemas.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_quote, list_equities, or get_issuer. The phrase 'Research-only; not a broker feed' is a caveat about the data's nature, not a routing rule. An agent must infer from the tool name that this is for historical series.

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