get_signal_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It uses 'View' implying a read-only operation, and it describes the row contents (symbol, signal, price, 7-day return, outcome label). However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, required permissions, data freshness, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic reading of history. It adds some value but lacks depth.

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 succinct and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a row-format overview, a usage line, and a clear Args block. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values in detail, yet it does. It covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. Minor gaps like data recency or error behavior are not mentioned, but these are non-critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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 thoroughly explains both parameters: symbol as 'NSE symbol to filter (e.g. RELIANCE), or \'\' for all' and limit as 'number of rows to return (default 20, max 100)'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema and even provides an example and constraints.

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 opens with 'View recent signals logged by FinStack with their actual outcomes', which clearly states the verb (View), resource (signals logged by FinStack), and the specific scope (recent, with actual outcomes). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_signal_accuracy or check_signal_outcomes by emphasizing the historical listing of signals and their outcomes, not accuracy metrics or targeted checks.

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: 'audit the model, build trust with users, or export for analysis.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, stopping short of full guidance.

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