Stock Price Candles (OHLCV)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat these. The description adds minimal behavioral context, only mentioning the data source (Finnhub) in parentheses. It does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or data limits.

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 sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. It is compact and front-loaded: the core function is stated immediately.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and full annotations, the description suffices for a simple historical data retrieval tool. It could be improved by mentioning max data points or resolution defaults, but it is largely 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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds a human-readable summary of resolution options ('1min to monthly') but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns historical OHLCV candlestick data with configurable resolution, specifically for charting and technical analysis. It is distinct from sibling tools like stocks.market.quote (current price) or stocks.company.news.

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 gives a use case ('charting and technical analysis') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like stocks.market.quote for real-time data. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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