get_ohlc

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden and credibly discloses the VNDIRECT source and the 4H aggregation from 1H candles. This goes beyond a simple 'get data' statement, though it omits return format and error handling.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and each clause adds distinct information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 data retrieval tool without an output schema, the description gives sufficient context: it identifies OHLCV as the data type, names the source, and explains the 4H anomaly. The absence of explicit return structure is mitigated by the well-known OHLCV format and comprehensive parameter schema.

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 full parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the 4H resolution is synthesized from 1H, which is not evident from the schema alone, and provides example symbols.

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 function: fetching historical OHLCV data for a Vietnamese stock from VNDIRECT, with specific timeframes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the data type and source, making it 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 when to use the tool by defining its data scope (historical OHLCV) and available timeframes, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. The note about 4H synthesis adds contextual guidance for that resolution.

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