price_history

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It implies a read-only operation returning daily OHLCV data. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or what happens with invalid keys. The behavioral traits are partially disclosed.

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 first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the key parameter. Every word is necessary and 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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the main parameter well but omits details on `points` and `interval` (e.g., allowed range, effect on results). Also lacks return format info. A more complete description would address these gaps.

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%, but the description adds meaning for `topic_key` with examples and sources. The other parameters (`points`, `interval`) are not explained beyond their schema defaults. This partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Daily OHLCV history for a security,' specifying the verb (get history), resource (security), and data type (OHLCV). It distinguishes from siblings like yields or orders by focusing on price data, and the topic_key examples add clarity.

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 description explicitly tells how to obtain the required `topic_key` via resolve_securities, search_securities, or portfolio(). This gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose is distinct enough.

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