get_index_history

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

No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavior. It does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, data range restrictions, or response size. Only states it 'gets' data, leaving safety and side effects ambiguous.

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?

Two sentences and an example are concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. The example is somewhat redundant with the description but aids clarity.

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?

Minimal for a history tool with no output schema and no annotations. Missing details on returned data fields, date range behavior (e.g., default if omitted), and pagination. Should describe what historical data includes.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds date format specification and an example illustrating parameter usage. However, it does not explain that 'from_date' and 'to_date' are optional, nor their expected values beyond format.

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?

Clearly states it gets historical data for an NSE index, distinguishing from stock, commodity, and currency history tools. However, does not specify what data fields (e.g., OHLCV) are returned.

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 date format instruction and an example, implying usage for index history. No exclusion criteria or alternatives mentioned, such as when to use get_index_constituents or get_index.

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