get_investment_prices

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent. The description adds that the tool returns daily and high-frequency data and includes OHLCV data. However, it does not discuss pagination behavior, data freshness, or rate limits. The schema covers pagination parameters, so the description provides moderate added value.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes essential details without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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, the description adequately covers return content (OHLCV) and filters. It does not specify default behavior when no filters are applied (e.g., returns recent prices for all assets), but this is a minor gap. Overall, it is fairly complete for a read-only data retrieval tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining price_type enum values ('daily' as monthly aggregates, 'hf' as high-frequency intraday) and mentions OHLCV data availability, which goes beyond the schema.

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 investment price history for portfolio tracking, specifies asset types (stocks, ETFs, mutual funds, crypto), and lists filters (ticker, date range, price type). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_holdings or get_balance_history.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (portfolio tracking) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. The sibling tools are related but the description implies its scope effectively.

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