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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context the annotations cannot: rows are compact, ordering is oldest-first, the range's net floor change is included, and prices are denominated in ADA.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the metrics and row format, followed by the unit note. No filler and no repetition of the name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so reasonably (metrics, compact rows, ordering, net change, ADA). It does not clarify the interaction between the limit's 'latest candles' selection and the oldest-first ordering, a minor gap for an otherwise complete read-only historical tool.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter is documented in the schema, so the description need only supplement. It mentions hour/day granularity and the aggregation window only implicitly through 'per day (or hour)' and 'over the range', adding little beyond what the schema already states.

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 names the exact resource (one NFT collection), the exact metrics (floor price, traded volume, sales per day/hour), the row shape (compact, oldest first), the derived value (floor change over the range) and the unit (ADA). An agent can immediately tell this is a historical candle series rather than a current snapshot like get_nft_market or get_nft_analytics.

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 context of use is implied by the purpose (historical floor/volume series for a collection), but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over get_nft_market, get_nft_analytics or get_token_candles, and no noted prerequisites beyond the policy id source in the schema.

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