tickerbot_get_ticker_bars

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses ordering (oldest-first), bulk response shape (keyed by symbol), back-paging semantics (before+limit), and interval coverage differences (1d/1h full history vs sub-hour back-fill). This far exceeds what the schema alone reveals.

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 dense sentences, each with distinct operational guidance (bulk, point-in-time, coverage/paging). Front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main usage modes and critical behavioral nuances. The schema fully documents every parameter, so the description's high-level context suffices; minor gaps like default limit or cursor mechanics remain in the 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that asof returns a single bar, before+limit enables back-paging, ticker supports up to 50 symbols, and 1d/1h have full coverage. This goes beyond the schema's per-param descriptions, earning 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get OHLCV (open/high/low/close/volume) bars for one or more symbols at a given interval'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_ticker or get_ticker_history by focusing on OHLCV bars, bulk symbol support, and interval-based retrieval.

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?

Provides clear usage guidance: comma-separated tickers for bulk, asof for point-in-time bars, before+limit for back-paging, and interval coverage differences. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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