getIntradayChart

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by stating it retrieves 'real-time or historical stock data' and includes 'trading volume for each minute.' It does not contradict the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or openWorldHint annotations. However, it omits details like data source limitations, rate limits, or potential pagination.

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 tool's primary purpose. Every sentence is informative and there is no extraneous text. It is concise and well-structured.

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 4 parameters, complete schema descriptions, and annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It explains the output includes OHLCV and volume. However, it lacks explicit mention of the return format (e.g., array of objects) and potential limitations (e.g., data range limits). The absence of an output schema increases the burden on the description, but the description still covers the key aspects.

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?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (symbol, interval, from_date, to). The description mentions 'intervals' and the data fields (OHLCV) but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves intraday stock price and volume data with specific fields (OHLCV). The verb 'Access' and resource 'precise intraday stock price and volume data' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getFullChart or getEODDataBulk, though the name and mention of intervals hint at the distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other chart tools (e.g., getFullChart for daily data, getEODDataBulk). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, not when it is appropriate.

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