market_bars

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only historical data fetch but does not explain default ranges, limit behavior, rate limits, error handling, or other operational traits.

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, lean sentence with no wasted words, but it is so terse that it sacrifices informative content. It is appropriately front-loaded yet under-specified.

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 absence of annotations and parameter explanations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently select this tool over siblings or invoke it correctly. The output schema provides return structure, but selection and usage context are missing.

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 adds no parameter semantics. The meanings of symbol, timeframe, start, end, and limit must be inferred entirely from the schema, which the description does not supplement.

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 identifies the resource as historical OHLCV bars and names Yahoo Finance as the source, which distinguishes it from real-time market data tools. However, it lacks an explicit action verb and does not mention the symbol parameter, so it's clear but not exemplary.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternative market data tools such as tick, market_snapshot, or bulk_quotes. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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