price_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does so thoroughly by describing thinning behavior, the 130-point limit, and the meaning of thinned_every. It does not cover every possible behavioral nuance such as symbol format or timezone, but it is materially transparent for an agent deciding to call it.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then compactly lists the return fields and the intraday alternative. Every clause contributes information, and the line breaks make it 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description enumerates the return contents in sufficient detail for an agent to know what to expect. The only structural omission is exact symbol format, but overall the description is complete enough for safe invocation.

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 schema provides no descriptions for either parameter, and the description compensates by enumerating valid range values. Symbol semantics remain mostly implied by the tool name and financial context, but the range documentation adds meaningful value beyond the raw 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 identifies the resource as daily price history for one symbol and specifies exactly what is returned, including closes, returns, high/low, and thinned price points. It distinguishes itself from price_chart by explicitly stating that intraday bars should use that sibling tool.

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?

It provides an explicit alternative directive: 'For intraday bars use price_chart,' so an agent knows when not to use this tool. It also gives concrete range options, clarifying the intended scope of the request.

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