forex_get_historic_ticks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets' ticks, but does not describe the return format, ordering, pagination, or any limits on data volume. It omits details about whether the response includes trade price, volume, timestamp, or other fields.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is efficient and free of fluff. It states the essential function without repetition or unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone. While it conveys the core operation, it lacks critical context such as the structure of returned ticks, the meaning of 'trade ticks' in terms of data fields, or any limits on response size. An agent would have to guess about output format and behavior, making the description incomplete for safe invocation.

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 description adds some meaning beyond the schema by specifying the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and indicating the 'forex pair' concept, which clarifies from_symbol and to_symbol. However, it does not explain the optional 'limit' parameter or provide deeper semantics for the symbols beyond being a pair. With 0% schema coverage, partial compensation is made but not full.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('historic trade ticks for a forex pair on a date'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like forex_get_quotes, forex_get_aggregate_bars, and forex_get_rsi by explicitly targeting raw tick data for a specific date.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios like needing historical tick data instead of aggregates, quotes, or indicators. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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