price_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a read operation. The description adds that the tool returns OHLCV and summary statistics, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, data source, or error handling. The description provides minimal added value beyond the annotations.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the main action, and the second elaborates on the output. There is no wasted text, and it is front-loaded with the purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return formats. The description covers the main return elements (OHLCV and summary stats) but omits context like data adjustments or date range handling. Overall, it is complete enough given the schema, but a bit more detail would enhance understanding.

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 each parameter described in the schema. The description does not add new meaning to the parameters (e.g., it does not explain what period 'max' means or the default interval). With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 purpose: 'Get historical price data (OHLCV) for a ticker.' It specifies the verb (get), resource (historical price data), and includes return details (open, high, low, close, volume, summary statistics). This distinguishes it from siblings like stock_quote (current price) and technical_analysis (indicators).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for historical price data but offers no guidance on exclusions or when not to use it. For a diverse set of siblings, explicit guidelines would improve clarity.

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