get_recent_bars

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

With no annotations, the description partially carries the behavioral burden: it discloses ordering, recency, and the missing-bar count. However, it does not disclose output shape, the meaning of 'window', paging/limits, side effects, or other operational behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main result and ordering, with no filler. The second sentence adds a meaningful caveat rather than redundant restatement.

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?

There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description must make the tool self-contained. It does not explain parameter semantics, the structure of returned bars, or the exact meaning of the window, leaving important invocation details unspecified.

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 0%, and the description does not define the count or symbol parameters. The word 'window' might relate to count, but the description never explicitly states that count controls how many bars are returned or that symbol selects the bar series.

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 the resource (recent bars), the ordering (newest first), and a notable output trait (count of missing bars). It is clearly distinct from get_market_state and get_feed_health, though it lacks a direct verb such as 'retrieves'.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The second sentence implies a trend-analysis caveat, but it does not describe alternatives or conditions that would select one sibling tool over another.

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