get_indices_bars_daily

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the included indices and supported plans, but does not disclose behaviors such as default parameter handling, date range interactions, or pagination. This is adequate but not rich beyond 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, return summary, plan note, and Args section. It is concise, though the first two sentences are slightly redundant ('Retrieve daily index bars (OHLC)' and 'Returns daily OHLC and volume').

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 has 4 optional parameters and an output schema, so return values are covered by the schema. However, the description does not clarify how parameters interact (e.g., using date plus date_from/date_to) or what happens when no parameters are provided. It also doesn't mention which indices are returned if code is omitted. This leaves gaps for a flexible retrieval tool.

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 must compensate. It provides useful examples for code (e.g., 0000 = TOPIX) and date format (YYYYMMDD or YYYY-MM-DD), but leaves date_from and date_to with only names and no explanation of their relationship or usage. This partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 retrieves daily index bars (OHLC) and names specific indices (TOPIX, Nikkei 225, Growth 250), which distinguishes it from equity and derivative bar tools. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_indices_bars_daily_topix, leaving a minor ambiguity.

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 implies usage for daily index bar data but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_indices_bars_daily_topix or get_equities_bars_daily. It does mention supported plans, which is a usage constraint, but lacks 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.