get_historical_data

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'basic metrics' without defining them, and omits data limits, rate limits, or response structure. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden, but the description is still insufficient.

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 sentence with clear front-loading. It is concise, though perhaps too minimal for full clarity. Every word serves purpose, but it could be slightly more informative without detracting from conciseness.

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, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about what 'basic metrics' entails (e.g., OHLCV, volume) and does not specify data source or calculation methods. For a straightforward tool, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, yet the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The schema itself provides parameter descriptions (e.g., symbol), but the description should clarify intervals, data range, or expected values, which it does not.

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 returns historical price data with basic metrics, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on options analysis, Greeks, and strategies. The verb 'Get' and resource 'historical price data' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for raw historical data, but does not state exclusions or when to choose more complex sibling tools. Context provides some differentiation.

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