options_get_daily_open_close

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 mentions the date format and OHLCV, omitting details about the 'adjusted' parameter, error behavior, or whether it returns a single record or a list. Minimal extra context beyond the tool name.

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, clear sentence that is not verbose. Every word adds some value, but it is so concise that it misses essential details. It is appropriately structured but under-specified.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is inadequate. It lacks guidance on symbol format, the 'adjusted' flag, return structure, and how it relates to similar tools. An agent would have difficulty invoking it correctly without external knowledge.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and implies the symbol refers to an option contract, but it does not explain the structure of an option symbol or the meaning of the 'adjusted' parameter, leaving two of three parameters underspecified.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'OHLCV for an option contract on a date,' which distinguishes it from stock/crypto counterparts. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other option data tools like options_get_aggregate_bars.

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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no mention of when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., options_get_aggregate_bars or options_get_previous_close) or any prerequisites such as symbol format or data availability.

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