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

Annotations already communicate a safe read-only, idempotent operation, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful context about the returned metrics (aggressive buy/sell volume, buy pressure, VWAP, trade count), but it does not disclose output shape, pagination, or potential variability across symbols. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that immediately names the core deliverable, grounds it with examples, and lists the distinguishing metrics without repetition or filler.

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?

For a simple one-symbol read operation, the description covers the main return fields and the annotations cover safety, but it leaves usage context and parameter details to be inferred. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about response behavior would improve completeness.

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 needed to compensate, but it only illustrates the symbol parameter with examples and says nothing about interval selection or how limit behaves. The enum and default values in the schema carry most of the parameter meaning.

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 identifies a clear resource (OHLCV candles) and specifies the data fields included, with concrete symbol examples that make scope obvious. It lacks an explicit verb, though the tool name supplies it, and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_market_summary or get_symbol_intelligence.

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The description only states what data is returned; an agent must infer that this is the tool to use for candle data.

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