get_stock_history

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the date format and gives an example, but fails to disclose rate limits, data sources, error handling (e.g., invalid symbol), or any side effects. Significant gaps remain.

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 two sentences plus an example, with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately conveys the core purpose, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should cover return values, error cases, and parameter constraints. It only provides a basic example and date format, omitting what the response looks like (e.g., OHLC columns) and how to handle invalid inputs. Completeness is inadequate.

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. While it does add meaning through the date format ('DD-MM-YYYY') and an example usage, it does not explicitly describe each parameter (e.g., what 'symbol' accepts). The example partially covers semantic gaps but not fully.

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 explicitly states 'Get historical OHLC data for a stock', using a specific verb ('get') and indicating the resource ('historical OHLC data for a stock'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stock_quote (current data) or get_etf_history (historical ETF data).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other history tools for different asset types) or any prerequisites/conditions. It only states what it does, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.

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