option_history_quote

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 mentions interval aggregation and a 1-month limit but does not describe the response format, whether bid/ask sizes are included, or error handling. This is insufficient for a data retrieval tool with no output schema.

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 brief and front-loads the core purpose, but the '[VALUE]' placeholder suggests a template error. While it contains no redundant sentences, it lacks the polished structure expected and feels underdeveloped.

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 large schema (12 params), no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too sparse. It doesn't explain the meaning of NBBO, the return format, or how this tool differs from other sibling quote/trade history tools, making it incomplete for effective selection and invocation.

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?

All 12 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, such as date format details or filtering behavior, so it stays at baseline.

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 'NBBO quote history for options', which clearly identifies the tool's function as retrieving historical quote data. However, the leading '[VALUE]' placeholder is unprofessional and the description does not explicitly contrast with other option history tools, though the name and content do provide some 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like option_history_trade_quote. It only mentions constraints ('Max 1 month, requires expiration'), which are limitations rather than usage scenarios or exclusions.

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