get_stock_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the useful truncation rule ('Returns at most max_points recent rows'), clarifying ordering and row-count behavior. However, it is silent on data staleness/delay, caching, error behavior for invalid symbols, and permission needs for what is presumably a public read.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by the two enumerated parameter families and the truncation note. No filler; every line adds information.

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?

For a read-style data retrieval tool with an output schema documenting return values, this is largely complete: purpose, valid period/interval values, and row limits are covered. The missing piece is exchange semantics and what happens on invalid or delisted tickers.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does for three of five parameters: it enumerates valid period values, valid interval values, and explains max_points truncation semantics. The gap is 'exchange': NSE/BSE are mentioned but the parameter's default (NSE) and how it interacts with symbol prefixes is never explained.

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?

States a specific resource and format — 'Price history (OHLCV) for an NSE/BSE stock or index ticker' — with a concrete example ticker ('^NSEI'). An agent can distinguish it from get_stock_quote/get_index_quote by the 'history' vs 'quote' resource framing without opening the schema.

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 its use case (historical prices for stock/index tickers) and lists valid period/interval values, but never states when to prefer this over get_stock_quote, get_index_quote, or get_nav_history. No exclusions or routing guidance are given.

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