historical_correlation

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 does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what time range is covered, how 'days' affects the calculation, or what the response format contains. The description is a bare statement of functionality with no additional behavioral context.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It omits crucial details such as the correlation method (e.g., Pearson/Spearman), the time interval implied by 'days', and the structure of the returned data. For an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the result, this is insufficient, especially considering the complexity of correlation calculations.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters ('Number of days', 'First symbol', 'Second symbol'). The description adds minimal semantic value by clarifying that the tool operates 'between two symbols', which maps to symbol1 and symbol2, but it does not explain the meaning of 'correlation' or how 'days' is used. This is a baseline 3 since the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 'Get correlation data between two symbols' clearly states a specific action (get) and resource (correlation data), and identifies the key inputs (two symbols). While it doesn't explicitly mention 'historical', the tool name historical_correlation provides that context, distinguishing it from potential real-time correlation tools. It is specific enough to differentiate from the many indicator and price tools in the sibling list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships to other tools like historical_ohlcv or indicator_* tools. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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