get_grouped_daily_aggs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get grouped daily bars'), without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more structured if it included additional details. The brevity is a strength, but it borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameters, output format, or behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively. The lack of sibling differentiation and usage guidelines further reduces completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters (e.g., 'adjusted', 'include_otc', 'locale', 'market_type', 'params', 'date') are explained in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for this gap. It doesn't clarify what any parameter does or how they affect the 'grouped daily bars,' leaving all parameters undocumented.

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 the tool 'Get[s] grouped daily bars for entire market for a specific date,' which provides a basic verb+resource+scope. However, it's vague about what 'grouped daily bars' and 'entire market' mean, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_aggs' or 'list_aggs,' which seem related to aggregates. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity and differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_aggs' or 'get_daily_open_close_agg,' leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone. There's no explicit or implied context for usage.

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