tickerbot_get_series

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 discloses pagination ('cursor-paged backward'), row output shape, transitions_only behavior, plan coverage ('All-time on every plan'), and limits (25 columns, 50 tickers). This goes well beyond minimal 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core concept ('THE series primitive'), and each sentence adds distinct, non-redundant information: capability, limits/behavior, transitions, and replacement of older routes. No 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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects for selection and invocation: data shape, limits, pagination, transitions mode, plan access, and relationship to deprecated routes. It is more than adequate for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters combine (flat row per ticker per interval step) and illustrating the output shape with an example, but it largely reiterates schema details. This extra contextualization justifies a 4.

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 uses a specific verb+resource with defining characteristics: 'THE series primitive: cross-ticker, multi-column time series on one aligned grid.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_ticker_history and get_ticker_bars by stating it replaces per-ticker history routes and looping asof snapshots.

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?

It explicitly names when to use: 'Replaces looping asof snapshots per date, and replaces the sunset per-ticker history routes.' This directly addresses alternatives and gives a concrete use case for transitions_only, making the usage context unambiguous.

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