get_history

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses results are capped at 250 rows and that intraday intervals cover only recent dates, which is helpful. However, it omits other behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, then bullet-like examples and a cap note. No redundant words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 5 parameters, one required, and an output schema, the description covers essential usage: valid values for period/interval, date range alternatives, and row cap. It is sufficient for correct invocation, though more detail on symbol validation could help.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing example values for period and interval, explaining the start/end vs. period tradeoff, and clarifying that start overrides period. This enriches the schema's definitions.

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 tool returns historical OHLCV data for a symbol, specifying the exact resource and operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quote (current price) and get_fund_data (fundamental data).

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 parameter examples but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_quote, get_fund_data, or search. An agent must infer usage context from tool names alone.

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