get_stock_prices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'read-only' and 'ISO date range', which are useful behavioral constraints. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, rate limits, or other side effects. For a simple read-only data fetch, this is adequate but 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('read-only OHLCV history') and scope. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 description is adequate for a simple data retrieval tool: it specifies the data type, market scope, and date format. However, without an output schema or annotations, it does not mention the granularity of data (e.g., daily bars), any limits, or the structure of the response. An agent might need to infer these from the OHLCV term.

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 adds meaning by clarifying that ticker refers to A-share or US equity and that dates are in ISO format. This goes beyond the bare schema property names and helps an agent format inputs correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('OHLCV history'), and a scope ('A-share or US equity') with a date range. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_company_fundamentals or get_financial_statement, which are about other data types.

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 retrieving price history but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. It does not mention scenarios where this tool should or shouldn't be used, leaving usage to inference from the tool's purpose.

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