get_historical_stock_prices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the basic function, omitting details like return format (e.g., open/close prices), compatibility constraints between period and interval, or any rate limits. This bare minimum fails to inform the agent of behavioral nuances.

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 of 11 words, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word is necessary, and there is no fluff or redundancy. It is optimally concise.

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?

For a simple tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It fails to mention important context such as valid period-interval combinations or the structure of the returned data (e.g., OHLCV). Given no output schema, this adds a gap in understanding the tool's behavior.

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% with each parameter having a basic description (e.g., 'Stock ticker symbol.'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the period and interval. Baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'historical stock prices', and the constraints 'period and interval'. It differentiates from siblings like balance sheet or news, but does not explicitly distinguish from similar sibling tools such as get_stock_price_date_range, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_current_stock_price for current prices, get_stock_price_by_date for a single date). It lacks context on typical use cases or prerequisites.

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