get_kpi_history_batch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the max batch size, but that is already in the schema. It does not disclose return format, potential partial failures, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words 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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the return structure or at least mention that results are grouped per instrument. It does not. The complexity of a batch call with 5 parameters and 2 enums is not fully addressed, leaving potential user uncertainty about response shape and edge cases.

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 no new parameter information beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., instList, priceType). It only restates the batch aspect, which is already in the schema's maxItems constraint.

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), the resource (historical KPI values), and the batch scope (multiple instruments, max 50 in one call). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_kpi_history for single instruments.

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 phrase 'in one call' and 'multiple instruments' gives clear context for when to use this batch tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as using get_kpi_history for a single instrument.

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