get_history

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

The description explains the data type (OHLCV), resolution ranges, and adjustment strategies. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and covers behavior well, though it could mention any rate limits or data recency.

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 concise and well-organized with subsections for Resolution and Adjustment options. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet list for resolutions) but is not wasteful.

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 complexity (5 params, 1 required), full schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, parameter options, and default values. No gaps remain.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents parameters. The description adds value by enumerating valid resolution values and adjustment options, which goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 retrieves historical OHLCV chart data for a TradingView symbol, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_quote or get_technicals by focusing on historical candlestick data.

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 lists resolution and adjustment options, giving clear context for when to use each. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, missing a 5.

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