get_bars

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' signals a read operation and 'historical' frames the data scope, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, date inclusivity, or output format. Adequate but not rich.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It captures the action, resource, data type, and interval scope efficiently.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description gives enough to select and call the tool for historical daily/weekly/monthly bars. Minor gaps remain around response format and default behavior, but the schema covers defaults and limits.

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?

At 60% schema coverage, the schema already documents symbol, dates, and the interval enum. The description adds OHLCV meaning and supported intervals but does not clarify limit semantics or date handling beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('historical OHLCV bars'), and the supported intervals ('1d/1wk/1mo'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_intraday_bars and get_quote.

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 historical daily/weekly/monthly focus implies when to use it, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer it over get_intraday_bars or get_quote. No exclusions or alternative-selection guidance are provided.

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