Get futures bars

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by detailing what the output includes (Relative Volume, zone, session, summaries), which is beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context about the data returned.

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, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core output and key derived fields. It front-loads the primary content (OHLCV bars) and lists the enhancements. There is no redundant information, and every phrase earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, full parameter coverage in the schema, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the return content adequately. Minor gaps like default window length or date format are covered by the schema, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 all parameters (days, symbol, end_date, timeframe, include_bars) are already documented with descriptions and defaults. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and it doesn't. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden and the description adds no extra semantics.

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 returns OHLCV bars for a trading-day window, with additional computed fields (Relative Volume, zone, session, summaries). It specifies the resource (futures bars) and the nature of the output. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_range_chart, but the purpose is evident from the name and content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only describes the output, not the context in which it should be selected. For a tool with siblings like get_range_chart, this omission leaves the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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