stock_history_trade_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It does mention a maximum request duration and the concept of 'contemporaneous' matching, but it does not explain how quotes are matched, whether the response includes both trade and quote records in a single structure, or what happens when the 1-month limit is exceeded.

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, tightly worded sentence that communicates the core purpose and a key constraint without wasting words. It is concise and front-loaded, though it lacks structural elements like explicit headings or examples, which is acceptable for a short description.

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—8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations—the description is too sparse. It does not explain the response format, the nature of the quote-trade pairing, or how this tool relates to the many similar sibling tools, leaving substantial gaps for an AI agent attempting to select and invoke it correctly.

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 full descriptions for all 8 parameters (100% coverage), including the date override behavior, venue selection, and the exclusive matching option. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it relies entirely on the schema, which is already adequate.

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 that the tool provides 'Trade history paired with contemporaneous BBO quotes', which identifies its core function of combining trade and quote data. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools stock_history_trade and stock_history_quote, which focus on only one of these data types.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stock_history_trade or stock_history_quote. The only usage-related information is the constraint 'Max 1 month per request', which is a limitation, not a recommendation for use cases.

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