get_history_date_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does convey the core behavior: retrieving an available date range for a security. However, it does not disclose details such as whether the range is inclusive, what format dates take, how errors are handled, or what the exact return shape is. This is adequate for a simple getter but not richly transparent.

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 clear sentence with no filler or redundant text. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, which makes it easy to scan, though it is a bit minimal for the full context an agent might need.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not explain the relationship to the many historical-data sibling tools. An agent would know what the tool roughly does but would lack context about when to call it, what the returned range looks like, and how it fits into a workflow involving get_history or get_historical_candles.

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 every parameter already has a meaningful description, including defaults for engine and market. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema handles the burden, keeping this at the baseline.

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 operation ('get') and the specific resource ('available date range for historical data of a security'), so an agent understands what the tool returns. It distinguishes this from data-fetching siblings like get_history or get_candles by emphasizing the date range rather than the data itself, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_history, get_historical_candles, or get_candles. The description implies it relates to historical data but does not state that this should be used to discover the valid range before fetching history, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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