get_end_of_day_prices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Fetches') and mentions optionality of date range and format. However, it does not specify output format details, pagination, rate limits, or error behavior, and the term 'format' is ambiguous (could refer to resample frequency or output formatting).

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then mentions key optional parameters. There is no redundant or repetitive content, making it appropriately concise.

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 no output schema, the description gives the essential return (prices) but lacks detail on output structure, asset class scope, and differentiation from siblings like get_forex_prices. The ambiguity around 'format' and lack of usage boundaries leave significant gaps for an agent deciding when and how to invoke this tool.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the main description adds limited value beyond echoing that there is an optional date range. The mention of 'format' is not clearly mapped to resampleFreq, which could cause minor confusion, but the schema's parameter descriptions are sufficient.

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 a specific action ('Fetches') on a specific resource ('End-of-Day prices') with the object being 'a given ticker symbol'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_forex_prices or get_fundamentals_statements, which focus on other data types.

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 parameter-level usage ('optional date range and format') but does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives. It lacks explicit guidance on asset class coverage (e.g., stocks vs forex) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling context.

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