get_historical_prices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape as 'a list of candles' and implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but it does not mention ordering, adjustment, timezone handling, pagination, or rate limits. This is adequate for a simple historical data fetch but not richly transparent.

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 opens with a concise purpose statement and then uses compact Args/Returns blocks. Every line carries useful information, and no filler or redundant phrasing is present.

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 straightforward read-only historical data tool with an output schema available, the description covers purpose, all parameters, and the return format. The only notable omission is explicit guidance to use get_quote for current prices, but that is not necessary for correctly invoking this tool.

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 0%, so all parameter semantics must come from the description. It defines ticker with examples, timeframe with accepted values, and interval with accepted values, fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptive detail.

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 'Get historical price data for a stock', giving a specific verb and resource. The mention of OHLCV candles helps distinguish it from related market-data tools in the sibling list, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling alternatives.

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 intended use is reasonably implied by 'historical price data' and the argument descriptions, and sibling tools like get_quote or get_technical_indicators have naturally different purposes. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus those alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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