stocks_get_previous_close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's basic function without adding context about return format, timezone, adjustment behavior, or any potential edge cases. There is no mention of read-only status or what the output looks like.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose. This level of brevity is appropriate for a simple tool, though it sacrifices completeness for conciseness.

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 annotations, no output schema, and two parameters (one ambiguous), the description is insufficient for safe and correct usage. It does not clarify the 'adjusted' parameter, output contents, or how this tool compares to similar ones. The lack of context could lead to incorrect assumptions or misuse.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters. The 'symbol' and 'adjusted' fields are left entirely to the schema, but the 'adjusted' parameter is ambiguous (e.g., does it adjust for splits/dividends?). The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('previous day's OHLCV for a stock'). It specifies the asset class and data type, distinguishing it from other stock tools (e.g., current price, last quote). However, it does not explicitly contrast with stocks_get_daily_open_close, which is a sibling tool that might seem similar.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of exclusions, alternative tools, or scenarios where another tool might be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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