tickerbot_get_ticker_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 discloses that it returns a point-in-time row with indicators, boolean flags, and the most-recent fundamentals known on that date, plus 'Unlimited depth on every plan'. This gives clear behavioral expectations beyond a basic read operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core concept. Every sentence adds value: the first defines what is returned and distinguishes it from a series; the second clarifies alternative usage and plan access. No filler or redundant 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 a two-parameter read-only tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is notably complete. It conveys return contents, temporal semantics, and plan access, while also directing to alternatives. A concrete example of the returned row could further enhance completeness, but it is not essential for this simple tool.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds meaningful context by framing asof as a 'past date' and explaining that the row represents state 'as it stood' with 'most-recent fundamentals known on that date', enriching the temporal semantics beyond the schema.

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 'Time-travel SNAPSHOT' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the full wide row for one ticker as it stood at a past date'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting 'one row, not a series' and pointing to tickerbot_get_series for series data.

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 usage guidance: it states when to use this snapshot tool and directs to an alternative for series data ('for a multi-column time SERIES use tickerbot_get_series'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools and clarifies selection criteria.

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