Get Price History

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds real value by stating that data is day-end rather than intraday, ordered oldest-first, defaulting to 90 days, and limited to a rolling one-year archive. This is meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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?

Two tight sentences lead with the most important facts and then give parameter guidance. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers core data type, ordering, date range options, defaults, and archive limits. It is slightly incomplete on sibling routing and edge-case parameter interactions, but overall it provides enough for correct 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that start/end are ISO dates and that days is an alternative with a default of 90 and a one-year ceiling. It does not explain ISO format details, the relationship when both start/end and days are supplied, or the symbol parameter, leaving some gaps.

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 identifies the tool as returning price history and specifies the data shape: 'Day-end OHLCV candles, oldest-first.' This is specific enough to separate it from quote, summary, or news tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the closely related sibling get_index_history.

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 useful call-level guidance: provide ISO start/end, or use days with a 90-day default and a one-year archive limit. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_quote for current prices or compute_indicators for derived analysis.

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