option_history_ohlc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one meaningful behavioral trait: the maximum 1-month request limit. However, it does not mention output format, pagination, timezone handling, or explicit read-only confirmation. The term 'Historical' implicitly suggests a safe read operation, but the description does not elaborate beyond the age constraint.

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, focused statement that front-loads the core purpose and includes a crucial constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete for real-world use. It omits critical context such as how to construct date ranges, the interplay between parameters, the availability of sub-minute intervals only for single-day requests, and what the response looks like. The schema provides parameter detail, but the description fails to add higher-level usage guidance or return expectations.

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 11 parameters, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; for example, it does not explain how 'date' interacts with 'start_date'/'end_date' or how 'strike_range' filters contracts. All parameter semantics are delegated 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 'Historical OHLC bars for options', specifying the resource (OHLC bars), scope (options), and action (historical). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like option_history_eod or option_history_trade, which target different data types. The addition of 'Max 1 month per request' further defines the scope.

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 a key constraint ('Max 1 month per request') but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool compared to siblings like option_history_trade or option_history_quote. The name implies it is for OHLC history, but there is no direct statement of 'use this for OHLC bars' or exclusions. Usage context is only implied.

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