get_stock_ohlcv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Retrieves'), implies data retrieval from a source, and shows the return format with an example. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error conditions that would be important for an agent.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, example). The example is detailed but necessary to show the return format. Slightly verbose due to the full example table, but each section adds value. Could be more front-loaded by moving the example after a brief return description.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining parameters and showing the return format through example. It covers the core functionality well but lacks context about data sources, limitations, or error handling that would make it fully complete.

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?

The description provides comprehensive parameter documentation beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose, format requirements (YYYYMMDD for dates), and the adjusted parameter's meaning and default value. The example demonstrates proper usage with concrete values.

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 specific action ('Retrieves OHLCV data') and resource ('for a specific stock'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_stock_fundamental or get_stock_trading_volume. It precisely identifies the data type (Open/High/Low/Close/Volume) and target resource (stock).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_index_ohlcv or get_stock_trading_volume. The description mentions only what the tool does, not when it's appropriate relative to sibling tools or any prerequisites for use.

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