index_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and that the data is 'records', but doesn't specify the structure of records, pagination, data units, or whether the data is adjusted. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is under-specified and omits critical details, making it more of a placeholder than a useful description. It doesn't waste words, but it also doesn't provide enough value.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides almost no context on return values, parameter semantics, or usage constraints. It is minimal and leaves the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool reliably.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It only states the date format and doesn't define the 'name' parameter (index identifier) or the semantics of date range (inclusive/exclusive). This minimal information doesn't help the agent construct valid arguments.

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 provides historical OHLC data for an index, with a specific resource (index) and scope (historical OHLC). It distinguishes from sibling tools like stock_history by specifying 'index'. However, the verb is implicit rather than explicit ('get'), and it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, so it's not a 5.

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 the tool is for retrieving historical index OHLC data, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as live_index or chart_data. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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