stock_history_trade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the maximum 1-month date range and tick-level granularity, but omits other behavioral traits such as response format, pagination, timezone handling, and whether the data is delayed or real-time. This is a minimal disclosure for a read-only tool.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Tick-level trade history') followed by a key limitation. There is no wasted wording, and the most important information appears first.

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?

Although the schema fully documents parameters, there is no output schema, so the description should explain what the response contains. It does not mention return fields (price, volume, timestamp, etc.) or pagination behavior, leaving a gap for a tool with 7 parameters. The description is adequate but not complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by indicating a critical cross-parameter constraint: the date range (start_date/end_date) cannot exceed one month, which is not stated in the schema. This helps the agent understand valid parameter combinations.

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 fetches tick-level trade history for a stock, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_history_ohlc (OHLC bars) and stock_history_quote, while the 'stock' qualifier sets it apart from option history tools.

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 implies usage for historical trade data but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stock_snapshot_trade for real-time quotes or stock_history_eod for daily bars. The max 1-month constraint is stated but no longer-period alternatives are mentioned.

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