get_equities_bars_minute

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds the 2-year data availability limit, which is a behavioral detail. No contradictions with annotations.

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 moderately concise and well-structured with clear sections (Japanese terms, usage hints, Args list). It avoids fluff but includes relevant technical details. A minor improvement would be to front-load the core purpose more aggressively.

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 output schema exists (not shown but present), the description need not explain return values. It covers the main functional aspects and constraints. However, it could mention the typical output fields (OHLC) to better prepare the agent. The sibling tool list is large, but the description provides enough context for selection.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter: code format (5 digits, 4-digit matches ordinary shares), date formats (YYYYMMDD or YYYY-MM-DD), and the range parameters. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 it provides per-stock 1-minute OHLC bars, with specific Japanese terms. It distinguishes from sibling tools that serve daily bars or other data types (e.g., get_equities_bars_daily). However, it could explicitly mention that it returns OHLC data rather than relying on implied meaning.

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 mentions use cases like minute-level price and intraday OHLC, and notes data availability (up to 2 years). It also lists supported plans. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools (e.g., get_equities_bars_daily) or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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