Daily price history

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description focuses on what the data means. It adds real context beyond them: prices are in Rial, unadjusted for capital increases or dividends, and dates are Gregorian, and ordering is newest-first. It does not cover rate limits or failure behavior, but those are secondary for a read tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste: returned fields and ordering first, then the units, adjustment, and calendar caveats. Every clause carries information an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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 no output schema, the description does the right job of enumerating the returned fields (open, high, low, close, volume, trades, value), their units, and ordering. It does not say what a response looks like structurally or what happens for an invalid or delisted symbol, which keeps it short of a 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 100%, so both symbol and days are already documented in the schema, including the 15 KB reply size rationale for the 50-day cap. The description's 'latest trading days, newest first' restates the days semantics without adding syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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-and-resource: returns daily OHLCV plus trades and value for one instrument. It implies single-instrument scope, which distinguishes it from ts_index_history and ts_market_movers, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'for its latest trading days, newest first' implies a historical-series use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over ts_get_quote (latest snapshot) or ts_index_history (indices). The choice is left to inference.

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