get_stock_history

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned payload shape (OHLC + volume), which is useful, but says nothing about rate limits, error behavior (e.g., invalid symbol), or truncation when limit/period conflict. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Three short sentences that front-load the return type and follow with purpose and examples. No filler, though the example list is partly redundant with the schema's symbol 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 6-parameter data-retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned and roughly how to shape input, but does not explain the return record structure, ordering, or behavior when both startDate and period are supplied (only the schema hints at precedence).

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 every parameter (including the '.IS' auto-append hint and the startDate/period precedence) is already documented in the schema. The description repeats the symbol examples but adds no semantics beyond structured fields, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: returns historical OHLC plus volume for a stock, and scopes it to BIST or global symbols. That is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_stock_price-type calls, though it never explicitly contrasts with get_bist_price/get_global_stock_price.

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?

'Used for technical analysis and chart drawing' gives a usage context, and the sample symbols clarify input expectations. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_technical_indicators, get_bist_price, or get_fundamentals, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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