get_stock_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (list of candles ordered oldest-to-newest) and parameter constraints. No contradictions; it is a read-only tool without side effects.

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 concise, front-loading the main purpose, then listing parameters with examples in a clean formatted style. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description adequately covers parameter usage and return format. It does not mention data source or rate limits, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 adds meaning by explaining symbol as 'Ticker symbol, e.g., AAPL', period as 'Lookback window', interval as 'Candle size', and provides example values. This is effective but could be slightly more detailed.

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 retrieves historical OHLCV candles for stocks or ETFs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_stock_quote (current price) and analyze_stock (analysis). The verb 'Get' and resource 'historical OHLCV candles for a stock or ETF' are specific.

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 clear parameter guidance (symbol, period, interval) with examples, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_stock or get_stock_quote. The context is implied for historical data retrieval.

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