get_valuation_history

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds the time-series nature and example, but does not elaborate on return format or pagination. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 well-structured with a summary, strategy, example, and args list. It is concise with no fluff, and the most important information is 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 simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the key aspects. It could mention default date ranges, but overall it is complete enough for effective use.

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%, but the description explains each parameter: symbol (security symbol), metric (pe/pb/ps/dividend_yield with default pe), start and end (dates YYYY-MM-DD). This adds value beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 it retrieves valuation metric history (PE, PB, PS, dividend yield) over time, which distinguishes it from sibling 'get_valuation' (current metrics). The verb 'Get' and resource 'valuation metric history' 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?

The strategy explicitly says 'Use to check if current valuation is high/low historically,' providing clear context. No alternatives or when-not-to-use are given, but the sibling tools are diverse enough that this guidance is sufficient.

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