Robinhood Get Historicals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that historical price data is returned, with no mention of response format, rate limits, read-only guarantees, or constraints such as which intervals are valid for which spans.

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 sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. However, it is arguably too generic, providing only the bare purpose statement and no additional context.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the returned historical price data looks like, whether results are OHLCV candles, or which interval/span combinations are valid. It is enough for coarse selection but insufficient for fully informed invocation.

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 100%, and all parameters have descriptions, enums, and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying symbol from 'stock,' so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get historical price data for a stock.' This meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings like get_quote or get_fundamentals, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling. It is not a tautology because it clarifies what 'historicals' refers to.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_quote, get_news, or get_fundamentals. It provides no context about typical use cases, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling tools.

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