get_price_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds that data comes from a full-market pull and is cached for 1h, which signals freshness behavior. However, it does not mention output structure, error cases, or implications of the cache beyond the time window.

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 two short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the caching note adds relevant context without bloating the text.

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 tool has a simple parameter set, but with no output schema and no annotations, return format and the role of top remain unexplained. The description covers what the data is and its freshness, but not enough for fully confident invocation without inference.

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 the parameters. It explains that insCode is the instrument identifier, but it never explains the meaning of the top parameter. The schema's default/min/max hints at a count limit, but the agent cannot know what top actually controls.

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 clearly identifies the resource as daily OHLCV history in Rial keyed by insCode, which distinguishes it from get_quote or market_status. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves', but the noun-phrase framing still conveys the tool's output well.

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 word 'Daily' and 'history' imply this is for historical daily data rather than current quotes, but no alternative tool is named and no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are stated. Usage context is present but only implied.

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