get_histories

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the endpoint returns a single unified stream and that event types are optional and 'where available,' which is useful context. Missing are details on response format, pagination, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving moderate gaps.

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 sentences long, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: the second specifies return content, the third summarizes configuration options without unnecessary padding.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level overview but lacks details on return structure, default behaviors, or error conditions. The single unified stream concept is mentioned but not elaborated, so an agent might not know what to expect in the response.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter detail. It does add a useful summary of configurable aspects ('date range, interval, included record types, sorting, and page size') but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns time-series data for an asset in a single unified stream.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_search or get_financials by focusing on historical prices and event types (dividends, splits, capital gains).

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 the tool is for retrieving historical market data and mentions configurable options, giving clear context for when it would be used. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions, such as 'use get_market_price for current prices.'

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