get_eod_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: result ordering (newest first), retention horizon (~5 years), the fields returned (open, close, volume), the notable absence of high/low, and that indices are supported. It omits error behavior, auth/rate limits, and how limit interacts with the date clipping.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and result shape in the first two lines, followed by the sibling escape hatch and the date/row-size practicalities. Every sentence adds information; no filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description correctly fills the gap by describing returned fields, ordering, coverage horizon and date format. What remains thin is failure modes (invalid symbol, out-of-range dates) and the precise semantics of limit combined with date filtering.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it gives the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) for start_date/end_date, an example symbol value, explains clipping semantics, and ties the limit default of 260 to roughly one trading year. The limit parameter's interaction with start/end clipping is still unstated.

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?

States a specific resource (daily end-of-day history) with verb, scope (~5 years) and ordering (newest first). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_ohlc_history by declaring this feed has no high/low, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative feed (get_ohlc_history) and the exact condition that selects it (need for daily high/low), and notes it also works for indices with a concrete symbol example. It does not address when to prefer get_quote or get_market_snapshot, so context is clear but not exhaustive.

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