get_mf_history

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions returning full history if no dates specified, but does not cover rate limits, authentication, error handling, or output structure. Partial transparency.

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?

Three short sentences plus an example. No wasted words, purpose is first. Efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter format, and default behavior. It lacks explicit output description, but the example sufficiently conveys usage. Could mention output structure briefly.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description adds value by specifying date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and giving an example call. However, it does not explain the meaning of scheme_code, and defaults are only implied. Still, it improves understanding significantly.

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 retrieves historical NAV data for a mutual fund. It differentiates from siblings like get_mf_nav (current NAV) and analyze_mutual_fund (analysis). The verb and resource are specific.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for historical data but does not mention when not to use or contrast with similar tools like get_mf_nav or get_mf_categories.

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