get_historical_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'OHLCV bars' but does not disclose data source, pagination, limits, or behavior for missing data. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Extremely concise (4 words) but sacrifices clarity and completeness. A single sentence without structure; important details are omitted.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and the complexity of historical data retrieval, the description is wholly inadequate. It fails to explain how to use parameters, what OHLCV means, or any constraints. Output schema exists but does not compensate for lack of behavioral context.

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 50% (4 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no value beyond the schema; it does not explain parameters like bar_size, duration, or what_to_show. Does not compensate for low coverage.

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 'Historical OHLCV bars' indicates the resource (OHLCV bars) but lacks a clear action verb (e.g., retrieves, gets). It distinguishes from siblings like get_quote (current data) but is too terse to fully convey purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., get_quote for current data, get_trade_history for executions). No context about prerequisites or alternatives provided.

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