Intraday Line

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying minute-by-minute granularity and the effect of trade_sessions on pre/post-market inclusion, but does not disclose other behaviors like data limits or ordering. This is comparable to the high-calibration example where annotations carried the safety burden and the description added scoping detail.

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 two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and then address the key parameter. There is no redundancy or fluff; every word serves a purpose. This is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple read-only tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it returns (minute-by-minute price/volume), and how the trade_sessions parameter affects the data. It does not mention when to use it vs. alternatives, but that is covered under usage guidelines, and no critical operational detail is missing. A 4 is appropriate given the low complexity and full schema coverage.

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%, meaning all parameters (symbol, trade_sessions, _jq) are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the trade_sessions explanation but adds no new information beyond what the schema provides. The baseline for full schema coverage is 3.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('intraday minute-by-minute price/volume data'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like candlesticks or history_candlesticks, so it lacks the sibling contrast that would earn a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as candlesticks, history_candlesticks_by_date, or now. The description only explains the trade_sessions parameter, which is parameter semantics, not usage context. An agent is left to infer when intraday data is appropriate.

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