get_price_history

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds only the scope (Vietnamese stocks) but no additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, data update frequency, or behavior when 'days' exceeds 365. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description contributes little.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence in English and one in Vietnamese, both front-loaded with the essential purpose. No wasted words.

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?

The description implies the return format (OHLCV) which partially compensates for the missing output schema. However, it omits details like data source, maximum date range (though schema specifies max 365 days), or handling of missing data. Still, it provides adequate context for a simple history tool.

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 both 'symbol' and 'days' described clearly in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format of symbol, what 'days' counts). Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, but lack of added value drops the score.

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?

Description clearly states 'OHLCV price history for individual Vietnamese stocks,' specifying the verb (get implied), resource (price history), and scope (individual Vietnamese stocks). This differentiates it from siblings like 'get_index_history' (index-level) and 'get_realtime_quote' (realtime vs 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where other tools like 'get_index_history' or 'get_realtime_quote' might be more appropriate, nor provides any when-not-to-use advice.

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