get_price_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the substantive behavior an agent needs — that this is a time-series payload scoped to one ticker with optional corporate-event enrichment. It leaves out a few operational traits (whether prices are split/dividend adjusted, behavior for missing bars, effective cap on returned rows), which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 purpose in the first clause and closed with the routing rule, and every sentence carries content. The parenthetical enumeration of all eight timeframes and the event list duplicates the schema's own enumerations, which is mild redundancy in an otherwise tight definition.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description does the necessary work by spelling out the returned fields and the meaning of include_events. The remaining gap is result-set behavior (default of 30 bars, the 1-250 cap, interaction with date range), which an agent must read from the schema rather than the prose.

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 100%, so every parameter (symbol, from, to, resolution, limit, include_events) is already documented in structured form. The description repeats the timeframe list and event contents but adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema — e.g., how limit interacts with from/to is not clarified. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Historical OHLCV time-series bars and corporate event calendar for a single ticker') and enumerates what is returned: open/high/low/close/volume, period return, earnings, dividends, splits. It also explicitly separates itself from get_quote, so an agent can route between the two without opening a 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?

Gives named use cases ('historical charts, backtesting and corporate event lookup') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative: 'for the current spot tick only, use get_quote.' Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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