get_prices_by_date

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 clearly indicates a read operation ('Get') and defines the scope (Nordic instruments, specific date), but it does not disclose any potential side effects, required permissions, or return format. This is adequate for a simple getter but lacks depth.

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 two concise sentences. It front-loads the core action and scope, then provides a relevant alternative without unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states what it does, its scope, and how to handle global instruments. It could arguably mention return behavior or error cases, but these are not critical for selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema covers the only parameter (date) with a clear format and default, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond the schema, which is acceptable. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the semantic heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('stock prices for all Nordic instruments'), and scopes it ('on a specific date'). It also distinguishes from the sibling get_prices_by_date_global, making the tool's unique purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly directs users to an alternative for global instruments ('For global instruments, use get_prices_by_date_global'), which serves as a when-not-to-use guideline. However, it does not clarify when to prefer this over other price-related tools like get_stock_prices or get_latest_prices, so some context is still implicit.

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