get_price_history

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds that the result is OHLC aggregates rather than raw ticks or a single quote, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose availability limitations, default-range behavior, or exchange handling, so it adds only marginal value beyond annotations.

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 a single short sentence with no filler and the key phrase 'price history' is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for what it contains, though it earns no extra credit because it omits context that other dimensions penalize.

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?

This is a simple read operation and the annotations cover its safety profile, but there is no output schema and the description does not clarify exchange semantics, range options, or what an OHLC aggregate response contains. An agent can probably call it with just isin and rely on schema defaults, but the description alone is not fully complete.

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%, and the description only hints that the required 'isin' identifies the instrument. It says nothing about the range enum or the optional exchange parameter, so it does not compensate for the missing property descriptions. The schema's enum and default carry the actual parameter meaning, not the description.

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—price history in OHLC aggregate form—and ties it to an instrument. The verb is only present in the tool name rather than the description, and it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_quote or get_stock_details. Overall, it is specific and understandable, but not fully differentiated.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus get_quote, get_stock_details, or get_performance. The intended use is implied by the phrase 'price history,' but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing cues. This leaves the agent to infer selection from the tool name alone.

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