get_series

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: 'Both are optional and fall back to the API defaults.' This is useful but limited; it does not address auth, rate limits, invalid inputs, or response behavior. Since the output schema exists, return structure is covered, but the description could be more explicit about operational nuances.

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: the first states the core purpose, the second packs parameter guidance and default behavior. No wasted words, information is front-loaded, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 moderately simple data-retrieval tool with an output schema, the description effectively covers purpose, parameter formats, and default behavior. It lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools, but this is partially covered by purpose clarity. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to invoke 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?

The input schema provides only parameter names with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining the format and semantics of `metrics` (comma-separated metric keys with examples) and `window` (lookback like '30d', '180d', or '2y'), along with noting both are optional. This adds meaningful value 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a historical daily time series for a ticker.' This specific verb+resource (get + historical daily time series) differentiates it from sibling tools like get_ticker_state (current state) or get_levels (derived levels). The intended use for 'charting and regime context' further clarifies its niche.

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 a clear use context ('for charting and regime context'), implying this tool is for historical analysis rather than current snapshots. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity given the many sibling tools.

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