asset_bars

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses ordering, cutoff eligibility, incomplete-bar handling, return fields including ATR-14 and gap quality, and the delay-based completeness logic. This is far beyond minimal disclosure.

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 structured with labeled parameter bullets and a return summary. Every sentence carries useful information, with the core purpose front-loaded. It is appropriately detailed without being redundant.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains all input semantics, the shape of the returned objects, and edge cases like incomplete bars and session-based counting.

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%, yet the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter: preferred asset format, timeframe enum values, timestamp cutoff semantics, count direction and range, and sessions precedence. This adds meaning well 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 opens with 'Return raw OHLCV bars, ordered oldest-first', a specific verb+resource combination. The word 'raw' distinguishes it from sibling tools like asset_analysis and asset_chart, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 clear contextual guidance: it returns raw bars in a specified window, and explains parameter precedence such as sessions overriding count. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the contrast with siblings is implicit.

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