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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat these. The description adds the context of 'crypto futures symbol' which is helpful, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as sorting order, pagination, or timezone handling. With annotations covering the safety profile, 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get OHLCV candle data') followed by a brief use case. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity, the presence of a detailed output schema, and strong parameter documentation, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect. It clarifies the trading context (crypto futures) and typical use cases. While it could mention default intervals or limit behavior, these are already defined in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters (symbol, interval, limit), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds the context of 'crypto futures' which is marginal but not essential. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and description adds little extra.

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 retrieves OHLCV candle data for crypto futures symbols, specifying the resource (candles) and the format (OHLCV). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_price or get_technical_indicators, but the focus on candle data distinguishes it enough. The mention of charting and technical analysis adds context without explicit alternative references.

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 provides context on when to use the tool ('charting, price history, and technical analysis') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. No exclusions or pointers to get_price or get_technical_indicators are given, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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