get_grouped_daily_aggs

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'grouped daily bars' and 'entire market,' but does not disclose details like rate limits, authentication needs, or data format. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral insights.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get grouped daily bars'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to the tool's function.

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 has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description does not need to explain safety or return values. However, with 6 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more parameter context. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in parameter semantics and usage guidelines.

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%, meaning parameters like 'date,' 'adjusted,' and 'include_otc' are undocumented in the schema. The description only mentions 'specific date,' adding minimal semantic value for the 'date' parameter but ignoring the other five parameters. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving most parameters unclear.

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 states the tool 'Get[s] grouped daily bars for entire market for a specific date,' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('grouped daily bars') with scope ('entire market,' 'specific date'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_aggs' or 'get_daily_open_close_agg,' leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus others for similar data.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'entire market' and 'specific date,' but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to siblings like 'get_aggs' or 'get_previous_close_agg.' This lack of context makes it harder for an AI agent to select the correct tool.

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