get_intraday

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral context: local tick-to-OHLCV aggregation, that 'raw' returns individual ticks potentially numbering in the thousands, the PKT timezone for timestamps, and that the newest limit bars are returned. Missing only auth/rate-limit or failure behavior.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by only the details an agent needs (aggregation, raw caveat, timezone, newest-N). Tight overall, with the raw-tick warning parenthetical the only slightly awkward element.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description explains the return shape (OHLCV bars, newest limit, PKT HH:MM timestamps) and the data-volume risk. Sufficient for correct invocation; only symbol format and error/rate-limit behavior are absent.

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, and it largely does: it explains the aggregating interval values vs 'raw', clarifies limit by stating the newest limit bars come back, and implies small limits for raw. Symbol format is left to the schema/sibling search_symbols.

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 verb and resource (intraday price bars) with clear scope: the current or most recent trading session. That scope implicitly separates it from get_eod_history and get_ohlc_history, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'current/most recent session' framing, and there is a practical hint to keep limit small when interval='raw'. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_ohlc_history or get_quote, nor any prerequisites, so routing remains inferential.

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