get_stock_price_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the unsupported intraday intervals, the 500-bar cap, the dropping of oldest bars, and the `truncated` flag. This goes well beyond the bare schema and gives useful operational expectations.

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 well-structured: a concise lead paragraph followed by a parameter list. Every sentence adds useful information, and the main capability is front-loaded.

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 data-retrieval tool with no annotations and minimal schema descriptions, the description covers inputs, constraints, and even a return signal (`truncated`). The output schema can handle the remaining return-value details, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, but the description fully documents all three parameters: symbol with concrete examples, period with allowed values, and interval with allowed values. This completely compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('OHLCV price history'), and universe ('NSE/BSE-listed Indian equity'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_dividend_history or get_company_profile, and the data type is unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit context on when this tool is appropriate: historical OHLCV for Indian equities, with intraday intervals explicitly excluded. It also explains the 500-bar cap behavior. However, it does not name a specific alternative tool for intraday data or other price-related needs.

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