precos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges most of it: it discloses the unadjusted-price caveat, the 30-trading-day sampling for non-keyed non-WEGE3 tickers, the returned `aviso`, and the key requirement. It does not state rate limits or the exact response envelope, but the truncation/sampling behavior is the critical non-obvious trait and it is clearly disclosed.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by format, ordering, and access caveats in a tight sequence. It is dense but every sentence adds operational information; no filler.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the field list, ordering, adjustment caveat, date format, and key/sampling behavior. The main residual gap is the unexplained `limite` parameter, but an agent otherwise has enough to call it correctly.

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. It documents `de`/`ate` as YYYY-MM-DD and explains `chave_api` (free key) and `ticker`, covering 3 of 5 parameters, but leaves `limite` entirely undefined in both description and schema. Partial compensation warrants a middle score.

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 scope: the DAILY price series (open/high/low/close/average/volume/quantity/trades) plus corporate events of a stock, ordered oldest-to-newest. It contrasts with siblings by naming `desempenho` as the key-free alternative and restricting itself to a single 'AÇÃO', implicitly distinguishing it from the index/BDR price variants. However, it never explicitly routes to those sibling price tools.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: WEGE3 always returns the full series, while other tickers without a key return only a 30-day sample plus a notice explaining how to get full access. It points to `chave_api` for a free key and notes `desempenho` works without one. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use framing, but the key/no-key conditions are actionable.

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