get_equities_bars_minute

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

While annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, the description adds valuable operational context: data is only available for up to 2 years, a minute/tick data add-on is required on certain plans, and 4-digit codes match ordinary shares only. This goes beyond the structured annotations to guide correct usage.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-line core definition, usage hints, plan info, and a labeled Args section. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy or filler, achieving high information density in a short space.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 optional parameters, output schema present), the description covers purpose, use case, data limits, parameter formats, and plan constraints. It integrates seamlessly with annotations and schema, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by documenting all four parameters: code format (5 digits, with special note on 4-digit codes), date formats (YYYYMMDD or YYYY-MM-DD), and clear definitions for date_from/date_to as range query endpoints. This is a complete semantic mapping with no ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool returns per-stock 1-minute OHLC bars, using the Japanese term 分足 to reinforce the granularity. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_equities_bars_daily by explicitly focusing on minute-level intraday data, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 explicit use cases ('Use for 分足, 1分足, 分足データ, minute-level price, intraday OHLC') and adds operational context like 2-year data availability and plan requirements. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., daily bars) or state when NOT to use this tool, which prevents a perfect score.

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