get_signal_history

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

The verb 'view' implies read-only, but without annotations, the description does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior or potential side effects like rate limits or data latency.

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?

Well-structured with a brief purpose, row format description, usage advice, and arg list. A minor improvement could be merging the first two sentences for conciseness.

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?

With an output schema present, the description adequately covers tool behavior, argument details, and usage context. No gaps for the given complexity.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: symbol (NSE symbol or empty string for all) and limit (default 20, max 100), adding value beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves recent signals with actual outcomes, distinguishing from sibling tools like check_signal_outcomes and get_signal_accuracy by focusing on logged history and outcome labels.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: audit the model, build trust, export. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or explicitly name alternatives among siblings.

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