Get Historical Data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only limited context about returned content ('price and volume information') and nothing about authentication, rate limits, or failure behavior. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 definition is short, but the first and second sentences largely repeat each other. The second sentence adds only the price/volume detail, making the opening sentence redundant. It is acceptable but not tightly written.

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?

Core call requirements are covered by the input schema, output schema, and annotations. Missing are differentiation from close siblings and explicit edge-case guidance, such as historical date range limitations or data-source behavior. The definition is minimally complete but not fully contextual.

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 the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds little beyond restating 'symbol' and 'date' generically, with no format, constraint, or source-selection guidance beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the operation: 'Get historical data for a specific symbol on a specific date' and adds that it returns price and volume information. This is a specific verb-object pair with clear scope. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_symbol_data or get_market_data_for_asset.

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 text implies a point-in-time historical lookup but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No sibling tools, exclusions, or preferred contexts are mentioned. An agent would not know whether to choose this over get_symbol_data or get_market_data_for_asset.

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