historical_returns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get historical returns analysis' without explaining whether it computes percentage change, what period logic is applied, what the response format is, or any limitations. This forces the agent to rely on assumptions.

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 extremely brief (seven words) and contains no filler, making it easy to process. However, this brevity borders on under-specification, so it does not achieve the highest conciseness score.

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?

There is no output schema, no behavioral detail, and the surrounding context includes many historical tools (historical_prices, historical_ohlcv, historical_market_cap) that could easily be confused. The description is too sparse for an agent to reliably infer what results to expect or how to interpret 'returns analysis'.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters ('Trading symbol' for symbol and 'Return period' with an enum for period). The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate for this well-covered schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'historical returns analysis' for a symbol, making its basic purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like historical_prices, historical_ohlcv, or historical_correlation, leaving ambiguity about what 'returns analysis' specifically includes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many other historical_* analytic tools, nor are any exclusions or alternative tools mentioned. The agent is left to guess the intended use case.

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