get_stock_prices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the maximum time range (20 years), the response fields, and the potential for very large payloads without filters. This is transparent about a key operational behavior, though it omits details like error handling or rate limits.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences cover purpose, data fields, time range, and usage warning. Every sentence adds value, with the main action 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?

For a simple historical data retrieval tool, the description is complete: it specifies the data fields returned and the time horizon, and warns about response size. A minor gap is not explicitly stating whether the return is an array or single object, but the plural 'prices' and historical context imply a list.

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%, with all parameters (insId, from, to) already described. The description reinforces the 'from' recommendation and explains the consequence of omitting filters, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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's function: retrieving historical end-of-day stock prices for a single instrument. It specifies the data fields returned (date, OHLC, volume) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_stock_prices_batch' (multi-instrument) and 'get_latest_prices' (non-historical).

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 explicit guidance on using from/to date filters to limit response size, and warns that omitting filters returns a very large full history. It does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives, though the 'one instrument' scope implies batch tools for multiple instruments.

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