get_sgb_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states 'Get historical price data' and gives an example, but does not disclose behavior such as date range limits, data frequency (daily?), or what happens with invalid dates. The return format is not described, leaving significant gaps.

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—one sentence plus an example—and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is too sparse, missing important details about parameters and behavior. Every sentence earns its place, but more content is needed.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and siblings with similar patterns, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about the output structure, date format requirements, error handling, and data scope. The example mitigates slightly but does not provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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. It provides an example showing three parameters (symbol, from_date, to_date) with a specific date format, but does not explain their meanings, required formats, or defaults. The example is helpful but insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 'Get historical price data for a Sovereign Gold Bond'. The verb 'Get' and resource 'historical price data' are specific, and the target 'Sovereign Gold Bond' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stock_history or get_etf_history. The example reinforces the purpose.

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 such as get_sgb_quote or get_sovereign_gold_bonds. The description only implies usage for historical data but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations. The example provides context but no comparative guidance.

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