get_previous_close_agg

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 states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or details the return format (e.g., JSON structure, error handling). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to understand at a glance. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the simple operation described.

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 complexity (a data retrieval tool with 3 parameters), no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, return values, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for full contextual 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?

The description mentions 'specific ticker', which maps to the required 'ticker' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'adjusted' or 'params' parameters. With 0% schema description coverage and 3 total parameters (1 required, 2 optional), the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema details, leaving most parameters undocumented and their purposes unclear.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get previous day's open, close, high, and low for a specific ticker.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('previous day's open, close, high, and low'), and target ('specific ticker'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_daily_open_close_agg' or 'get_aggs', which likely provide similar financial data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'get_daily_open_close_agg' or 'get_aggs', which might offer overlapping or related functionality. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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