list_aggs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'iterate through' suggests a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this is a streaming operation, how results are paginated, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the aggregate bars are returned in. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently communicates the basic operation. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'aggregate bars' are, how they're structured, what the iteration returns, or how to interpret the various parameters. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without significant trial and error or external knowledge.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 9 parameters (5 required), the description provides minimal parameter guidance. It mentions 'ticker' and 'date range' (implied by 'from_' and 'to'), but doesn't explain the purpose of 'multiplier', 'timespan', 'adjusted', 'limit', 'sort', or 'params'. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions, leaving most parameters semantically 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 action ('iterate through') and resource ('aggregate bars for a ticker') with a scope ('over a given date range'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_aggs' or 'list_futures_aggregates', which appear to serve similar aggregate data retrieval functions.

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. With many sibling tools like 'get_aggs', 'list_futures_aggregates', and 'get_grouped_daily_aggs' that likely retrieve similar financial data, the agent receives no help in selecting the appropriate tool for different scenarios or understanding this tool's specific use case.

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