stock_history_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two behavioral facts: supports interval aggregation and has a 1-month request limit. These are useful but incomplete; it does not mention response format, pagination, timezone handling, or that it is a read-only operation (though 'history' implies it).

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence contributes functional information: what it does, a feature, and a limit.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the schema descriptions are rich and cover all parameters. The description adds key constraints (max 1 month, interval aggregation) but omits broader context like data source caveats, trading hours, or return structure. It is adequate but minimal.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful constraint 'Max 1 month per request' which directly informs how to set date parameters, a detail absent from the schema. 'Supports interval aggregation' also gives context on using the interval parameter, adding value beyond the enum list.

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 a stock', which clearly identifies the resource and type of data. It distinguishes from sibling history tools (e.g., trade, OHLC, EOD) by specifying 'quote' and 'NBBO'. However, the initial '[VALUE]' placeholder weakens the verb, making it less direct than 'Retrieve' or 'Get'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stock_snapshot_quote for current quotes or stock_history_trade for trades. It mentions constraints like 'Max 1 month per request' but does not explain selection criteria or exclusions.

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