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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses authentication and payment requirements, the limit of 'up to 500 candles', and ordering 'newest last'. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but the key restrictions are exposed clearly.

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 one dense sentence that buries the main resource description under a long payment/auth clause. It is not overly wordy, but the front-loaded payment text distracts from the primary purpose, while important schema hints are packed into the trailing clause.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential dimensions: diagnosis of required credentials/payment, the exact return content, range restrictions, and output limits. The existence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return fields, though some details like default values and fail behavior remain unaddressed.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning: 'one chain', 'fourteen timeframes', and 'up to 500 candles', which maps helpful semantics to chain, timeframe, and limit. Yet no defaults are described, and 'newest last' is an output property rather than a parameter explanation.

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 specifies a concrete resource: price history with open, high, low, close, volume, and trade count per candle. It does not explicitly say 'retrieve'/'get', instead using the noun phrase 'Price history', but the meaning is clear and distinct from the sibling 'prices' tool by emphasizing candle and OHLCV data.

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 clear context about what the tool returns, so an agent can infer to use it when historical candle data is needed. However, it never states explicit when-to-use guidance, alternative comparisons, or exclusions relative to siblings like 'prices' or 'market_state'.

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