get_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the 250-row cap, the behavior that 'start' overrides 'period', and that intraday intervals only cover recent dates (in the schema description but echoed in the main description). It also clarifies symbol constraints and accepted period/interval values, providing substantial transparency.

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, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the core purpose, uses code formatting for clarity, and every sentence contributes actionable information. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 5 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations. The description covers all essential aspects: data type, symbol constraints, parameter formats, date-range behavior, and row limits. Given the output schema exists, this description is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples for symbol, period, interval, and explaining the start/end override behavior ('Provide start... instead of period'), which goes beyond the schema's field descriptions. This extra semantic guidance justifies a 4.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Get historical OHLCV (open/high/low/close/volume) data for a symbol.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_quote (current quotes) and get_financials (fundamentals), and the name aligns with the described behavior.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when historical OHLCV data is needed) and includes prerequisites: 'symbol must be a native Yahoo Finance ticker... resolve those via search first.' It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the scope is well implied given the tool's purpose.

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