get_intraday_bars

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the data is stored locally in the database and that a sync step is required to seed it, which is meaningful context. However, it does not describe the return shape, ordering, timezone handling, or behavior when no data exists for the requested range.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and supported intervals are front-loaded, and the prerequisite sync instruction is added in a second sentence, making the description easy to scan and directly actionable.

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 5-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does enough by identifying the data source and the sync prerequisite. It could be more complete by explicitly pointing to get_bars for non-intraday data or stating the response format, but the description covers the most important operational context for calling this tool 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 60%, so the schema covers symbol, from, and to but not limit or interval. The description adds the list of valid intervals and connects them to sync_stock modes, which helps infer parameter usage, but it does not explain limit or the default interval beyond what the schema already provides. This is adequate but not compensating.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('intraday OHLCV bars') and enumerates the supported intervals, which clearly identifies what the tool returns. It also distinguishes itself from get_bars and sync_stock by emphasizing intraday data stored in the database rather than pulling or syncing data.

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 gives clear contextual guidance by noting that sync_stock must be run with mode=intraday_15m etc. to populate the database first. It does not explicitly state when-not to use this tool or name get_bars as the alternative for daily bars, so it falls short of a 5.

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