get_price_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that prices are adjusted for splits and dividends, and the data range (1986-present). However, it does not mention that the operation is read-only, any auth requirements, or rate limits. The added context is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, followed by data range, then parameter list. However, the parameter list in a code block could be more integrated; still, it is front-loaded and clear.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values do not need further explanation. Input parameters are fully documented with examples and defaults. This coverage, combined with the simple nature of the tool (historical data retrieval), makes the description complete.

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 compensate. It provides a detailed parameter list with examples (e.g., 'ticker: Stock ticker (e.g. PETR4)'), defaults for 'limit', and format hints for dates. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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 'Get historical OHLCV stock prices with adjusted values for splits and dividends', specifying the verb (get) and resource (historical OHLCV prices). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like get_stock_quote (current price) and get_dividends.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compare_stocks, get_stock_quote). The description mentions data availability (1986-present) but does not advise on scenarios where other tools are more suitable.

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