get_equity_history

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: cadence, window, ordering (oldest first), return shape, opaque cursor semantics, per-page limit meaning, and credential requirement. This goes well beyond typical descriptions.

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 five sentences with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: purpose, alternative, return shape, pagination, and limit clarification. It is slightly verbose but well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema and only two optional parameters, the description covers purpose, alternatives, return format, pagination mechanics, limit semantics, and auth requirements. This is complete for a paginated read 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 already covers both parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds operational nuance: limit is per page, not total, and cursor must be passed back verbatim with clear stopping condition. This complements the schema effectively.

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 tool fetches the authenticated account's equity time-series with specific cadence (5s) and window (~1h). It distinguishes itself from get_portfolio_history by explicitly naming the alternative for longer windows or additional series, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use this for short-window equity data, and use get_portfolio_history for longer windows or PnL/volume. The pagination instructions (keep calling with cursor until next_cursor is null) give a concrete usage pattern.

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