get_market_price_history

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

With no annotations available, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals that data is 'delayed' and 'plot-ready,' which is some context, but it omits other important limitations such as supported markets, data adjustment policies, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent relying on this description.

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, succinct sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 is relatively simple with three parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the absence of usage guidance and parameter semantics makes the tool only minimally viable for an agent to select and invoke correctly, despite its clear purpose.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the range or interval parameters. The mention of 'for a ticker' ties to the ticker parameter, but the description fails to explain acceptable values or formats for range (like '1y') and interval (like '1d'), which are only present as defaults in the 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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as 'market OHLCV history' with qualifiers 'delayed' and 'plot-ready.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on financial statements or valuations, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 instead of alternatives such as get_market_snapshot or get_company_chart_data. It lacks any mention of preferred scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling context.

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