get_price_context

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses free, local fetch, and JSON return. It mentions auto-derivation of window from markers with span padded (~60 candles). Could mention rate limits or error handling, but overall sufficient for a read-like operation.

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 concise sentences: first states core function, second provides usage guidance and sibling differentiation. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

The tool has 14 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description provides some context (auto-derivation, sibling links) but omits details for many parameters and does not describe the return structure beyond 'JSON'.

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 0% and there are 14 parameters. The description adds meaning for markers, risk, timeframe, start, end, and link to render/analyze tools. However, many other parameters (levels, session, timezone, indicators, max_candles, etc.) are left unexplained, requiring the agent to infer from 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 clearly states the tool returns OHLCV candles and trade markers as JSON for a symbol/window, using a local Databento key. It distinguishes from siblings by directing to render/analyze tools for chart images or trade analysis.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'For a chart image or trade analysis, use the render / analyze tools.' Also provides guidance on how to omit timeframe/start/end to auto-derive the window from markers, and how to pass fills and risk.

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