get_historic_bars

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds specific behavioral details: returns specific bar types and last regular close. No disclosure of rate limits or pagination, but sufficient given the read-only nature.

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?

Concise and well-structured: purpose stated first, followed by return info, then bullet-pointed parameter descriptions. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 5 parameters, output schema existence, and annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, return data, parameter meanings with examples, and default behaviors. No gaps identified.

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?

Description provides extensive semantics for all 5 parameters, including format examples, default behavior, and conditional requirements. Since the input schema properties have no descriptions (0% coverage), the description fully compensates with clear, actionable details.

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?

Description clearly states it gets OHLCV historic bar data for a symbol over a time period. It specifies return content (pre-market, regular, after-hours bars, last regular close). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'get_history', which might also return historical data, so it's not a 5.

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 context on parameters and return data, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use. Implied usage for historical bar retrieval, but lacking exclusions.

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