get_historical_data_v2

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not explain what 'unadjusted/repaired' means, whether data is adjusted for splits/dividends, whether any access restrictions or rate limits apply, or what side effects exist. The operation appears read-only based on 'Get,' but this is not explicitly confirmed.

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 a single sentence with no filler or repetition. It directly states the core function. The slight ambiguity of 'unadjusted/repaired' costs some clarity but does not add unnecessary length.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is too thin for a tool with four parameters and two sibling tools. It omits usage context, clarifies neither 'unadjusted/repaired' nor 'prepost,' and gives no indication about which technical indicators are included. An agent would have to infer too much from the schema alone.

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 75%, with symbol, period, and interval documented directly in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify the undocumented 'prepost' parameter. However, the schema's enums and descriptions carry most of the semantic weight, so the description's lack of contribution is only a moderate gap.

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 'Get' and names a clear resource: 'unadjusted/repaired price history and technical indicators.' This distinguishes it from get_options_chain_v2, which is clearly for options data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from get_stock_data_v2, which could plausibly also return price-related 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_stock_data_v2 or get_options_chain_v2. The phrase 'price history' implies past data, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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