get_market_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects, rate limits, or response structure beyond provenance. The description is too thin to give confidence about 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, which is a trade-off rather than a flaw in structure.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify the meaning of 'recent' (tied to the days parameter), the behavior of the provider 'auto' default, or what 'provider provenance' entails. An agent would need to inspect the schema or guess to call this correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention ticker, days, or provider at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names and defaults alone. This is a critical gap for a tool with three parameters.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('market bars'), with a specific qualifier ('recent') and a distinguishing feature ('provider provenance'). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_company_fundamentals, but the resource is distinct enough to be clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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