Price history and statistics

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait beyond the structured fields: statistics are computed on adjusted prices, which affects interpretation of returns and dividends/splits. It still omits any note on data source latency, rate limits, or failure modes.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the returned-data inventory leads and the adjusted-price caveat is placed last. Slightly list-heavy, but every item conveys what the tool returns.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of specifying the return contents, and it does so thoroughly. Combined with the full parameter documentation in the schema and read-only annotations, an agent has what it needs, though nothing is said about result size limits or missing-data 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 100%, with period, symbol, max_bars, and bar_interval all documented including enums and defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or interaction detail (e.g., how bar_interval 'auto' interacts with max_bars), which is the expected baseline-3 outcome when coverage is complete.

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 names a specific resource (historical OHLCV bars) and enumerates the derived metrics returned (total return, CAGR, volatility, drawdown, moving averages, RSI, dividends/splits), so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_quote or get_index, but the historical/statistical scope makes the distinction inferable.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_quote (current price) or get_index, nor any prerequisites, period-selection advice, or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the listed output content.

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