get_history

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or side effects. It only describes the input and return structure, leaving behavioral aspects opaque.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise, but overall it's efficient and clear.

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?

Given the output schema exists but is not explained, and the many sibling tools, the description could be more comprehensive (e.g., data range, frequency details). However, it adequately covers core parameters and purpose.

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 description adds critical value beyond the schema: it explains that 'ticker' is the stock symbol, and provides valid values for 'period' and 'interval' (including defaults). Since schema coverage is 0%, these clarifications are essential for correct parameter usage.

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 it retrieves historical price data for a stock, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from crypto-related tools by specifying 'stock', but does not explicitly compare with other historical data tools among siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_crypto_history or other financial data tools. The description merely states its function without usage context or exclusions.

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