history_ticker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds single-ticker scope and the date format, but does not disclose return ordering, default date-range behavior, or what happens when scoring_system_id is omitted.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and scope, with the date format in a parenthetical. Every element earns its place and there is no wasted text.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition leaves the agent without guidance on the meaning of scoring_system_id, the expected response shape, or the default behavior for omitted start/end. It is minimally viable for a basic default call but not complete enough for confident invocation in varied cases.

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, but it only provides a generic date format and does not explain start/end semantics, optionality, or scoring_system_id. The ticker parameter is inferable from the tool name, but scoring_system_id remains unexplained, leaving a clear gap for correct invocation.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('return') and resource ('score history' for a single ticker), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like history_batch and history_top. The parenthetical date format adds precision without obscuring the core purpose.

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?

'Single ticker' provides a clear selection criterion: use this when you need history for one ticker rather than multiple tickers or top-ranked tickers. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the scoping is unambiguous enough to guide correct selection.

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