options_get_aggregate_bars

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says 'Get aggregate bars' but gives no details about pagination, rate limits, adjusted prices, or how parameters like timespan or multiplier affect results. The only extra detail is the date format, which is insufficient for a tool with this many parameters and no annotations.

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 two short sentences, both of which add value: the first states the core purpose, the second provides a concrete format requirement. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, though it could have included more detail without becoming bloated. It earns a 4 for being appropriately concise but not maximally informative.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is starkly under-specified. It does not explain what the response contains, how parameters interact, or any special behaviors. The description is only slightly above a placeholder and fails to provide the context an agent needs to use this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters. It does add the value that dates must be in YYYY-MM-DD format, which is helpful for from_date and to_date, but it does not clarify symbol, timespan, multiplier, limit, adjusted, or sort. This is a minimal contribution relative to the schema's lack of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly states the resource ('aggregate bars for an option contract'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like stocks_get_aggregate_bars, forex_get_aggregate_bars, and crypto_get_aggregate_bars by explicitly scoping to options. The sentence is precise and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, leaving the decision entirely to the agent without contextual cues.

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