ig_get_historical_prices

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 only states the action without revealing any limitations, such as whether data is paginated, any rate limits, or the meaning of 'IG resolution'. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without extraneous content. It earns its place, though it could be expanded with useful details without harming conciseness.

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 tool's three required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to be fully informative. It does not explain what resolution options exist, how num_points works, or any behavioral constraints, relying entirely on the output schema for return structure.

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%, and the description only partially clarifies parameters: it mentions 'instrument' and 'IG resolution' which map to 'epic' and 'resolution', but does not explain 'num_points' or acceptable values. The description fails to compensate for the absence of parameter guidance in the 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 clearly states the tool retrieves historical OHLC prices for a given instrument and resolution, distinguishing it from sibling tools like market search or position management. The verb 'Get' and specific resource 'historical OHLC prices' make the purpose explicit.

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 this tool is used when historical price data is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives or any prerequisites. There is no mention of exclusions or specific scenarios.

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