get_previous_close_agg

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations provide 'readOnlyHint: true', indicating a safe read operation. The description specifies it retrieves 'previous day's' data, which adds temporal scope, but doesn't cover other aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. 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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding 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 covers the basic purpose adequately. However, with 3 parameters and 0% schema coverage, it doesn't fully explain parameter usage or behavioral nuances. For a data retrieval tool, this leaves gaps in understanding how to invoke it effectively.

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 are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'specific ticker', which aligns with the 'ticker' parameter, but doesn't explain 'adjusted' or 'params'. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving two parameters (adjusted, params) without semantic clarification.

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 previous day's open, close, high, and low for a specific ticker.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('previous day's open, close, high, and low'), and target ('specific ticker'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_daily_open_close_agg', which might have similar functionality, keeping it from a perfect score.

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_daily_open_close_agg' or 'get_aggs', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios. This lack of comparative or contextual advice limits the agent's ability to choose appropriately.

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