index_at_time_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the core function and offers no details about time zone handling, behavior outside market hours, exact-match vs. interpolation, or how date range parameters affect results. The sparse description fails to disclose any behavioral nuances.

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 sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, the '[VALUE]' prefix appears to be a placeholder artifact and detracts slightly from clarity. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a simple 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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only mentions symbol and time_of_day implicitly, completely ignoring the optional start_date and end_date parameters. It also fails to clarify what the return value looks like or how the date range interacts with the time-of-day price. This is insufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters (symbol, end_date, start_date, time_of_day). The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Index price at a specific time of day' clearly states the resource (index price) and the specific temporal context (specific time of day). It implies the action of fetching/retrieving, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like index_snapshot_price or index_history_price, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when this is appropriate (e.g., for historical point-in-time prices) or when not to use it (e.g., for current snapshot or full history). It simply states the tool's function without contextual usage hints.

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