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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the OHLCV data type and use cases but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or return format. This matches the baseline where annotations carry the transparency burden.

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, front-loaded sentence that states what the tool does and why it is useful. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 rich annotations, fully described schema, and output schema presence, the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly note that this returns historical data versus a current price, which would improve differentiation from get_price, but the OHLCV mention largely covers this. Slightly more contextual guidance would make it fully 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 100% with all three parameters (symbol, interval, limit) fully described, including defaults, enums, and ranges. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond saying 'OHLCV', so the schema already does the heavy lifting; baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('OHLCV candle data') and scope ('for a crypto futures symbol'). It also lists concrete use cases ('charting, price history, and technical analysis'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_price (likely current price) and get_technical_indicators.

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 context for when to use this tool ('Useful for charting, price history, and technical analysis'), implying these scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as 'for current price, use get_price'.

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