load_prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the currency (PKR), that prices are unadjusted, the 50-symbol cap, the full-history default, and the destructive semantics of re-loading (all rows for that symbol are replaced). It omits auth/permission requirements and error handling for invalid symbols, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is loaded and where, then the date default, then the replacement caveat. No filler and every sentence carries distinct 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the critical call-shaping facts: limit, currency, adjustment basis, date defaulting, and destructive replacement. What is missing is edge-case behavior (unknown symbols, partial failure), which keeps it below 5.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines start/end behavior (omit for full history) and characterizes symbols (up to 50 PSX tickers). It leaves date format and inclusive/exclusive range bounds unspecified, but the core meaning of all three parameters is conveyed.

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 (load) plus resource (daily OHLCV prices, PKR, unadjusted) and destination table `prices`, which naturally separates it from load_index, load_sectors, and load_fundamentals. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It gives one genuine usage rule ('Omit start/end for the full history') and an implicit constraint (max 50 symbols), which is more than nothing. But it never says when to load vs. when to use query or quote, nor does it warn about re-loading symbols whose data is already present.

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