get_aggs

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

The annotation provides readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it mentions 'custom time window sizes' which hints at the multiplier/timespan parameters, but doesn't describe rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or what 'aggregate bars' actually contain. With annotations covering the read-only aspect, this earns a baseline score.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text. It's appropriately sized for what it does cover, though it could benefit from additional explanatory content.

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 complexity (9 parameters, 5 required), 0% schema description coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. While the output schema may explain return values, the description doesn't adequately explain parameter meanings, usage context, or behavioral considerations beyond the basic operation. For a tool with this many parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should do much more heavy lifting.

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 0% schema description coverage for 9 parameters, the description carries full burden but only vaguely references 'ticker', 'date range', and 'custom time window sizes' (hinting at multiplier/timespan). It doesn't explain what 'aggregate bars' are, doesn't mention the 5 required parameters by name, and ignores 4 optional parameters including 'adjusted', 'sort', 'limit', and 'params'. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('List'), resource ('aggregate bars for a ticker'), and scope ('over a given date range in custom time window sizes'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_daily_open_close_agg' by mentioning custom time windows, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_aggs' or other aggregation tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get_daily_open_close_agg', 'get_grouped_daily_aggs', 'list_aggs', or other sibling tools that also retrieve aggregated data. No context about appropriate use cases or exclusions is provided.

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