get_stock_history

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it specifies the data type (OHLCV), the visualization (area/line chart with volume bars), and includes a file:/// link to an interactive dashboard with a clear instruction to always share it with the user. Missing details like rate limits or auth, but strong overall.

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?

Front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by concise details and an Args section listing all parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and behavioral traits. It does not explain return values beyond the chart/link, but the output schema handles that. Slightly missing edge-case or limitation notes keeps it from a 5.

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, the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters: ticker with examples (AAPL, RELIANCE.NS) and period with an explicit list of allowed values (1d, 5d, 1mo, 3mo, 6mo, 1y, 2y, 5y, max).

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (stock price history), and names the output format (interactive charts). Clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_stock_price and analyze_stock.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The name and context imply it is for historical price data, but the description does not compare it to siblings such as get_stock_price or analyze_stock.

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