get_ohlc_history

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses cost status ('only free source'), currency units (PKR), and the one-call-per-month granularity, but says nothing about rate limits, what happens for an invalid symbol/month with no data, or the shape of the returned series.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the unique-value justification, then the alternative. No filler and nothing restsated from the schema title.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only documentation, and it does cover purpose, routing, month format, and units. However, the return format for the OHLCV series and the symbol/year parameter conventions remain undocumented, leaving real gaps for a 3-required-param data tool.

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 clarifies the month domain ('`month` is 1-12') and the price unit (PKR), but leaves `symbol` format/validation and the acceptable `year` range entirely unspecified.

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 names a specific resource and scope: 'Full daily OHLCV for a single calendar month (has daily high/low)'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_eod_history, so an agent can tell the two apart 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call once per month needed'), an explicit alternative for the opposite case ('for a long close-only series prefer get_eod_history'), and a unique capability statement ('the only free source of daily high/low') that explains why an agent would accept the per-month cost.

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