get_ohlcv

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

With no annotations, the description must communicate side effects and constraints. It indicates a read-only retrieval (no mutability hinted) and specifies date/frequency formats. However, it omits details like the limit parameter's behavior, default values, or potential errors (e.g., invalid symbol).

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a brief format note. Every sentence adds value, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite an existing output schema, the description lacks completeness for a 5-parameter tool. It covers three parameters (frequency, start, end) but omits symbol and limit context. Ordering of bars (chronological?) is also unspecified, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 description explains frequency and date formats but fails to describe 'symbol' (what constitutes a valid stock symbol) and 'limit' (what it limits—likely number of bars). Given 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates, leaving two of five parameters unclear.

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 action ('Return'), the resource ('OHLCV bars'), and the constraints ('one symbol', date range, frequency). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_correlation_matrix or get_indicators, which serve different purposes.

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 usage for retrieving OHLCV data but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_indicators for derived metrics). No when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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