index_history_ohlc

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, but it only states what the data is (OHLC bars) without explaining behavior such as supported intervals, date range constraints, or response format. It adds no context about intraday vs EOD or any special limitations.

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 with no filler or redundancy. The [STANDARD] tag and direct noun phrase are front-loaded and immediately convey the tool's purpose, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely underspecified. It fails to explain how this relates to sibling history tools, what intervals are supported, or any behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps in context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the schema.

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 it provides historical OHLC bars for an index, distinguishing it from similar tools for stocks and options. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', relying on a noun phrase, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as index_history_eod, index_history_price, or snapshot tools. The description is purely declarative and offers no contextual or exclusionary information.

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