get_historical_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, read-only nature is clear. The description adds the list of intervals, which is useful behavior context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other traits like data limits, response structure, or error conditions.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences, no redundant phrases. It front-loads the core purpose and includes essential interval information. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is efficient.

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 four required parameters with no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify date formats, token sourcing, or response expectations. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but parameter guidance is critically 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for the 'interval' parameter by listing valid values. It does not explain the format for 'from_date' and 'to_date' (e.g., ISO date strings) or how to obtain 'instrument_token'. This leaves three out of four parameters poorly defined.

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 the tool retrieves historical candle data for an instrument, specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'historical candle data'. It lists the valid intervals, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quote (current price) and get_ohlc (OHLC snapshot). The scope is well-defined.

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 implies use for historical data retrieval but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_quote or get_ohlc). It lacks context on prerequisites, limitations, or time ranges. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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