inquery-stock-history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves historical data but doesn't specify aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data format, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it safely and effectively.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 of a financial data tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and expected outputs, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool correctly in a real-world context.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (symbol, start_date, end_date) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't compensate by explaining what these parameters mean, their expected formats (e.g., date format like YYYY-MM-DD), or valid ranges. This leaves the agent guessing about input requirements.

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 ('Get daily stock price history') and specifies the data source ('from Korea Investment & Securities'), which distinguishes it from general stock price queries. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inquery-stock-price' or 'inquery-overseas-stock-price' in terms of scope or granularity.

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, limitations, or compare it to siblings such as 'inquery-stock-price' (which might provide current prices) or 'inquery-overseas-stock-price' (which might handle non-Korean stocks).

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