get_price_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('get price range') without explaining behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns specific data formats, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first line states the purpose clearly, followed by a structured 'Args' section with parameter details. There's no wasted text, and the information is organized efficiently. However, the use of Japanese might reduce accessibility in some contexts, slightly affecting structure.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks context on behavior, output format, error handling, or sibling differentiation. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets a basic threshold.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage, providing only titles and types. The description explains each parameter: 'symbol' as a ticker code with examples (^GSPC, ^NDX), 'start_date' and 'end_date' as dates in YYYY-MM-DD format. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't cover all potential nuances like date validation.

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's purpose: '指定銘柄・期間の価格範囲を取得' (Get price range for specified symbol and period). It specifies the verb '取得' (get) and resource '価格範囲' (price range), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_price_on_date' or 'get_yearly_summary', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_price_on_date' (for single dates) or 'get_yearly_summary' (for annual data), nor does it specify use cases or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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