stocks_get_grouped_daily_bars

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the data type (OHLCV) and the scope (entire market), but omits critical behavioral details such as the meaning of the 'adjusted' parameter, the format/structure of the returned data, and potential edge cases (e.g., non-trading days, data availability). The description is too terse to fully inform the agent about the tool's behavior.

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 with no filler. Every word adds meaning (Get, daily OHLCV, entire stock market, date format). It is highly concise and well-structured for the information it conveys.

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 the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should ideally clarify what the agent receives (e.g., a list of bars for all tickers) and explain the adjusted parameter. While the core purpose is clear, the missing explanation of 'adjusted' and the return structure leaves noticeable gaps for a tool of this complexity. The description is adequate but not complete.

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 explain the parameters. It provides the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) but does not explain the 'adjusted' boolean parameter at all, despite it having a default value that affects the output. This is a significant gap for a 2-parameter tool; the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the resource ('daily OHLCV for entire stock market on a date'), with the date format specified. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like stocks_get_aggregate_bars (single ticker) by emphasizing 'entire stock market' and matches the tool name 'grouped_daily_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?

The description clearly conveys the intended usage: to fetch market-wide daily OHLCV data for a given date. It provides context (the date parameter) and implicitly excludes single-ticker operations, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since the scope is unambiguous, the agent can infer when to use this tool.

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