Historical prices

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral details beyond the output type. It does not mention whether it is a read-only operation, how data is ordered, limits on historical depth, or error handling, leaving the agent with minimal transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately concise, though slightly terse.

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 a simple historical data retrieval tool, the description and schema are minimally adequate. However, the lack of an output schema and absence of information about return format, time ranges, or edge cases make it only partially complete for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (bars, ticker, resolution) with defaults and examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 the tool provides historical OHLCV bars for a ticker at a resolution. The resource (historical prices) and granularity (bars) are specific, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools that provide current quotes or live quotes.

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 context of 'historical' implies it should be used when past price data is needed, distinguishing it from quote/live_quote tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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