Historical bars

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: max 20,000 bars, rate limit 50 requests per 30 seconds, default endTime=now, default startTime covering limit bars, and UTC timestamps. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps an agent predict limits and side effects.

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?

Three information-dense sentences with no repetition or filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by field meanings and then limits/defaults.

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?

This is an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, and the description is not complete enough. live and includePartialBar are never explained, and the output structure is only partially covered via field labels. The defaults and limits are useful, but an agent cannot fully reason about live bars or partial-bar behavior.

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 only 25%, so the description carries extra responsibility. It explains endTime/startTime defaults and the limit cap, but it leaves live, includePartialBar, and unit semantics essentially unexplained in both the description and 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 identifies the operation as retrieving OHLCV bars for a contract and adds ordering ('oldest→newest'), so an agent can tell it apart from quote or contract tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_quote, but the historical-bars framing is strong enough.

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 implies this tool is for historical OHLCV data, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings like get_quote or search_contracts. Defaults and limits are operational details, not selection criteria.

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