get_historical_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it 'gets' data, implying read-only behavior, but it does not disclose any important behaviors such as default date ranges, pagination limits, rate limits, or the exact format of the returned data. It adds no context beyond what the tool name already conveys.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It gets straight to the point and is appropriately front-loaded. It is efficient and easy to parse, earning full marks 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?

Despite having a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return format, how default date ranges are handled when from/to are omitted, or any limitations on data resolution. For a simple data-fetching tool, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's complete 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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description's phrase 'flexible time intervals' adds marginal emphasis on the interval parameter but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 'Get historical price data with flexible time intervals' uses a clear verb (Get), specifies the resource (historical price data), and indicates flexibility in time intervals. It is distinct from sibling tools like technical indicators or economic data, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternatives that might also provide price-related data. Overall, it is clearly understandable but lacks an explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. For instance, it doesn't say 'Use this for raw price history; for calculated indicators use get_technical_indicator_*'. Without such context, the agent is left without direction on tool selection.

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