get_daily_open_close_agg

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the data returned (open, close, high, low) and the scope (daily, specific ticker and date), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get daily open, close, high, and low for a specific ticker and date.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, financial data), annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint), and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally adequate. It states what data is fetched but lacks parameter details and usage context, leaving gaps in guidance and semantics.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'ticker and date' for two of the four parameters, adding some semantics. However, it omits 'adjusted' (likely for adjusted prices) and 'params' (additional parameters), leaving half the parameters undocumented. This partial compensation is insufficient for the low coverage.

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: 'Get daily open, close, high, and low for a specific ticker and date.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource (daily OHLC data), and identifies key parameters (ticker, date). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_previous_close_agg' or 'get_grouped_daily_aggs', which likely serve similar financial data retrieval functions.

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 sibling tools like 'get_previous_close_agg' for previous day data or 'get_grouped_daily_aggs' for grouped data, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the parameter names (ticker, date), with no explicit context.

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