get_history_correlation

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lacks disclosure about data source, calculation method, update frequency, or read-only nature. The agent is left guessing about operational details.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. Information is front-loaded. Could slightly benefit from structuring, but very efficient overall.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema) and many siblings, the description provides minimal context. It lacks explanation of return format, series length, or correlation type, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 33% (only peer has description). The description does not elaborate on symbol or days parameters beyond what schema shows. 'Price/sentiment' hints at the correlation type but doesn't explain how parameters affect output.

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 it computes a 'correlation series between two symbols (price/sentiment)' and highlights its utility for 'pair trades'. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_history_prices or get_history_sentiment.

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 mention that it is 'useful for pair trades' provides some context on when to use, but no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to other history tools. More specific guidance would help an agent decide between correlation, price, and sentiment tools.

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