price_history

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function and provides parameter examples, failing to mention data source, return format, pagination, or limitations. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a clear Args structure to enumerate parameters, with no extraneous words. It could be considered under-specified but is efficient for the information it contains.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining return values or data quirks. It does neither. The tool has three parameters and potential interval constraints (e.g., not all intervals available for all periods) that are omitted, leaving the agent with incomplete context for correct invocation.

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?

Despite a schema coverage of 0%, the description adds significant meaning by listing concrete allowed values for 'period' and 'interval' (e.g., '1d', '5d', '1mo'), which the schema lacks. It provides useful enumeration for all three parameters, though it does not explain the relationship between period and interval.

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 states a clear action ('Get historical OHLCV price data') with a specific resource (price data). It distinguishes itself from real-time quote tools like stock_quote by emphasizing 'historical', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., stock_quote, technical_indicators, price_correlation). There is no context for selecting among them, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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