Price history

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial behavior: the per-market return contract (`kind: "candles"` vs `kind: "closes"` with a `{time, close}` point shape), the server-chosen close spacing (hourly/daily/weekly), and a hard ~5-year history cap. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious detail annotations cannot express.

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 the market scope, then the two return contracts, then the windowing rule and the limit. Dense and information-rich with little waste, though the parenthetical shape notation makes it slightly hard to scan.

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 no output schema, the description steps up and documents the return structure well (candle vs close payloads, point shape, spacing policy) plus the retention limit. The only missing piece is guidance on choosing this over sibling quote/performance tools.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: `bars` is the most-recent-N form with default 100, and it clarifies that `bars` and `from`/`to` are mutually exclusive alternatives rather than combinable. It also reinforces the market-dependent effect of `resolution`.

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+resource (historical price data) and immediately qualifies the return shape per market (OHLCV candles for Egypt, closes elsewhere). An agent can tell this apart from get_price_snapshot or get_price_performance from the description alone.

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 explains the two windowing modes (`bars` vs `from`/`to`) and the ~5-year history limit, which implies usage, but never names or contrasts a sibling such as get_price_snapshot (current quote) or get_price_performance. The agent must infer when this tool is preferable to alternatives.

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