price_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the full-history scope ('since listing') and the adjustment semantics, but says nothing about ordering, pagination/truncation under the 5000-row limit, or what happens when the requested range exceeds available history.

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?

A single short sentence with the core resource front-loaded, plus a bilingual gloss. Nothing is wasted, though 'since listing' is slightly misleading next to a limit default of 250 and optional date bounds.

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 five-parameter historical-data tool, the description covers what the data is (daily OHLCV) and the adjustment option, which is the essential framing. It leaves the default-window behavior and the interaction between limit and date ranges unaddressed, so an agent must infer retrieval scope from the schema alone.

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 80%, so the schema already explains symbol formats, date formats, and the adjustment flag in detail. The description's 'optionally adjusted' merely restates the adjusted parameter, and it adds no meaning about limit, from_date, or to_date beyond what is structured.

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 resource and granularity: daily OHLCV history, plus the adjustment option. That is clearly distinct from siblings like quote, trades, or order_book_history, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'history' plus 'since listing' signals retrospective daily bars, so an agent can infer this is not for real-time quotes. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as trades for intraday data.

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