Valuation History

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

Description adds value beyond annotations by detailing output structure (history.metrics with nested objects). Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, so no contradiction.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose and output format with no wasted words.

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 no output schema, description fully explains return type and structure, making it complete for agent usage.

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?

Only one parameter (symbol) with 100% schema coverage. Description provides an example ('700.HK') but adds no additional meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get detailed valuation history time series' and specifies the metrics returned (pe/pb/ps/dividend_yield) with structure, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'valuation' or 'valuation_comparison' which are likely single-point or comparison-oriented.

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?

Implied usage for long-term percentile analysis, but lacks explicit comparison with siblings. No when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough for agents to infer.

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