get_price_history

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It vaguely mentions 'Schwab allows' but does not explain rate limits, pagination, response format, or error handling. The description offers minimal behavioral insight beyond the basic read operation.

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 action and resource. It wastes no words and is appropriately concise for a simple read operation, even though it under-specifies 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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to construct a valid request, the meaning of default values, or what the returned data looks like. The one-line description is insufficient for correct 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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the 8 parameters. It only alludes to 'period' and 'ISO-8601 time range' without mapping them to specific parameters (e.g., `period_type`, `frequency_type`, `start_datetime`, `end_datetime`). Essential parameters like `frequency` and `include_extended_hours` are entirely unaddressed.

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 tool's function: retrieving OHLCV price history with period or time-range specifications. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('OHLCV candle'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quotes (current prices) and get_technical_indicators (derived metrics).

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 implies the tool is for historical price data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as get_quotes or get_technical_indicators. No exclusion criteria or alternative comparisons are provided, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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