stock_history_eod

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

The description discloses that the report is '[FREE]' and 'Generated at 17:15 ET daily,' which adds context about cost and data availability timing. However, it does not disclose what the report contains, whether it is delayed, historical depth, or any limitations (e.g., no real-time data). Given no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure, and this is insufficient.

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, concise and free of fluff. It earns its place by adding the 'FREE' and generation time details. However, it omits critical information (like what the report contains), so while concise, it is under-specified rather than efficiently comprehensive.

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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the nature of an 'end-of-day report' (e.g., fields, historical range, accuracy), nor how to use the date parameters effectively. The context of sibling tools suggests this is a daily snapshot, but the description lacks the completeness needed for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (symbol, start_date, end_date), covering 100% of the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning to these parameters. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and there is no extra semantic value added by the description.

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 it is an 'End-of-day report for a stock,' which clearly identifies the resource (stock) and the action (providing an EOD report). It adds the generation time and FREE status, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like stock_history_ohlc or stock_snapshot_ohlc beyond the name. The word 'report' is vague about what data is included (e.g., price, volume, adjustments).

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. With many sibling history tools (e.g., stock_history_ohlc, stock_history_trade), there is no explanation that eod is the daily aggregate or how it compares to intraday or snapshot tools. The description relies on the tool name and general context.

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