get_etf_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only discloses date format (DD-MM-YYYY) and provides an example. Missing details: output structure, pagination, rate limits, range restrictions, or error behavior. The example is helpful but insufficient.

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 concise (two sentences plus example), efficiently stating purpose and key format. It could be more structured but avoids unnecessary verbosity. The example is well-placed.

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 no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what data is returned, any constraints, or how to interpret results. Users may need to infer from sibling tools like get_stock_history, which is risky.

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% (no parameter descriptions). The description does not explain each parameter's meaning beyond the example's implied usage. Default values for dates are not clarified, and symbol format is assumed. The example provides some context but is not a substitute for explicit documentation.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get historical data for an ETF.' It uses a specific verb+resource and differentiates from sibling tools like get_etf_quote (current data) and other history tools for different asset classes. However, 'historical data' is slightly vague (e.g., not specifying OHLCV).

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 guidelines are provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_etf_quote for current data, or other history tools). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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