time_series_intraday

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Fetch') without mentioning data sources, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or output format. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undefined for a tool with multiple parameters.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it is under-specified rather than optimally structured, as it lacks front-loaded critical details, but this is a content issue, not verbosity.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits essential context like data scope, return format, error cases, and differentiation from siblings, failing to provide enough information for effective use.

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 compensate by explaining parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify what 'symbol', 'interval', 'adjusted', etc., represent or their expected values (e.g., 'interval' as minutes, 'adjusted' for splits/dividends). With 6 parameters, this gap is significant.

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 'Fetch a time series intraday' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies a verb ('Fetch') and resource ('time series intraday'), but lacks detail on what 'intraday' entails (e.g., high-frequency data within a trading day) or how it differs from siblings like 'time_series_daily' or 'crypto_intraday', resulting in vague purpose.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'time_series_daily', 'crypto_intraday', 'fx_intraday'), the description fails to indicate context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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