get_historical_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but merely restates the tool name. It does not disclose what fields are returned (e.g., open, high, low, close, volume), data granularity, or any auth requirements. This leaves the agent unaware of the output structure.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the nature of the returned data (e.g., OHLCV, intervals) or handle edge cases like missing data. The tool is simple, but the description should provide more context for an agent to use it confidently.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'ticker' and 'period', including an enum for period. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'historical price data for a specific stock'. It concisely identifies the tool's main function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stock_analysis' or 'compare_stocks', which diminishes clarity slightly.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like 'get_stock_info' (for current data) or 'get_market_overview'.

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