get_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses one useful behavioral detail: days is clamped to 1-365. It does not describe ordering, timezone, or error handling behavior, but for a simple read-only historical-data tool this is reasonable transparency, though not rich.

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 compact, with the core purpose front-loaded and the clamping constraint in a short second sentence. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 simple two-parameter historical data tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the only non-obvious parameter constraint. It omits minor details like return formatting, but nothing essential to invoking it successfully is clearly missing.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. It does clarify days as trading days clamped to 1-365, but the symbol parameter's semantics are not described beyond its name; overall the description partially compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 identifies the tool as returning daily OHLCV bars for a symbol, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_quote and market_status. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns,' but the intended function is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for historical daily price data by specifying OHLCV bars and a trailing window of trading days. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with get_quote or indicator or state when the agent should choose this over a sibling, so the guidance is only implied.

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