get_intraday_bars

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the ~140-day intraday history limit, which is a real constraint an agent cannot derive from the schema, but it omits permissions/auth requirements, rate limits, and what happens when the requested window exceeds retention.

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 front-loaded with the one-line summary followed by a compact Args block, and each line earns its place. The BLPAPI parenthetical is mildly superfluous but the overall structure is tight and scannable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers domain, retention window, and every parameter's format. It stops short of explaining multi-bar return behavior or how out-of-retention windows are handled, minor gaps for an otherwise complete definition.

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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: it gives an example ticker format for security, ISO-8601/UTC plus a concrete example for the datetimes, an explicit enum list for event_type, and a numeric range (1-1440) for interval_minutes. Every one of the five parameters is made semantically actionable in prose.

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 verb+resource ('Intraday OHLCV bars for a single security') and cites the underlying API (BLPAPI IntradayBarRequest), so the domain is unambiguous. However, it never contrasts itself with the closest sibling, get_intraday_ticks, leaving the agent to infer bars vs. ticks on its own.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 140-day retention note and the 'single security' framing implicitly tell the agent when this tool is applicable and when a broader query is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to alternatives such as get_intraday_ticks or get_historical_data.

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