nt_historical_bars

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

The description discloses the async nature of NT8 historical bars and the placeholder return, which is a significant behavioral trait given the absence of annotations. Yet it leaves out details on how to retrieve the actual data or handle failures.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the purpose and a key caveat are front-loaded. This is a model of concise, useful documentation.

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?

The description covers the core request and a key caveat but lacks guidance on retrieving the eventual data after the placeholder, as well as parameter semantics. Given the sparse schema and no output schema, this leaves users with open questions.

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?

The input schema has only 33% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter-specific details. The meaning of 'bars' and 'symbol' is left to inference, and only 'interval' has schema-level description.

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 states 'Request historical OHLCV bars' with a clear verb and resource, and distinguishes it from nt_quote for live data. This effectively clarifies the tool's role even without elaborate detail.

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 note explicitly directs users to nt_quote for live data, providing a clear alternative. It also warns about async behavior, helping users set expectations. However, it does not elaborate on when to prefer this over other chart-related siblings.

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