list_aggs

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about 'iterating' through bars, suggesting a sequential or paginated retrieval, but doesn't specify behavioral details like rate limits, pagination mechanics, or what 'aggregate bars' entail. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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 that front-loads the core action. There's no wasted verbiage, but it's arguably too brief given the complexity (9 parameters) and lack of sibling differentiation. Every word earns its place, but more detail might be warranted.

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 9 parameters with 0% schema coverage, an output schema exists (which helps), and annotations cover safety, the description is incomplete. It hints at key parameters but misses most, and doesn't address usage context. For a data retrieval tool with many siblings, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'ticker' and 'date range', hinting at 'ticker', 'from_', and 'to' parameters, but omits the other 6 parameters (e.g., 'multiplier', 'timespan', 'adjusted'). It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving most parameters unexplained.

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 'iterates through aggregate bars for a ticker over a given date range', which specifies the verb ('iterate'), resource ('aggregate bars'), and scope ('ticker', 'date range'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_aggs' or 'list_futures_aggregates', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_aggs', 'list_futures_aggregates'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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