tool_get_price_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses an important limitation: returns 'summary statistics and a preview of the data (not the full dataset).' It also enumerates valid timeframes. It does not mention rate limits, date format requirements, or data source quirks, but the primary behavioral caveat is clearly 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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place: what it fetches, what it returns, when to use it, and valid timeframes. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 is adequate for orienting an agent and mentions the key preview limitation, and an output schema exists to describe returned data. However, it omits practical details needed to call the tool correctly, such as accepted date formats for start_date/end_date and any constraints on symbol or historical data availability.

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%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It adds value only for the timeframe parameter by listing valid values. The symbol, start_date, and end_date semantics — especially date formatting and whether end_date is inclusive — are left undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch historical OHLCV price data for an asset.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing this as pre-backtest price examination (e.g., tool_run_backtest, tool_optimize_strategy). The supported timeframes further reinforce the tool's specific scope.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to examine price history before defining a backtest strategy.' This gives clear context for selecting this tool over backtest and optimization siblings, though it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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