get_stock_prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (OHLCV in NZD) and frequency (daily), but omits details such as data source, timezone, handling of missing data, interaction between parameters (e.g., from vs days), pagination, or rate limits. The description adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, and includes key details about the return data. It is concise and efficient, though could benefit from a second sentence clarifying parameter usage. 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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It states the market and return format, but does not explain how to specify date ranges or the behavior of parameters like 'from' vs 'days'. The 100% schema coverage mitigates some gaps, but the description alone is insufficient for full understanding.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it only implies the ticker parameter via 'for an NZX company'. No additional context on parameter usage or relationships is provided.

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', the resource 'historical daily stock prices', and the scope 'for an NZX company'. It also specifies the return format (OHLCV in NZD), making it unambiguous and distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_daily_market_wrap' which likely provides a summary.

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 implicitly indicates usage for historical price data of NZX companies, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_daily_market_wrap' for summaries or 'get_fair_value' for valuations). No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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