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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own: no mention of candle count/limits, pagination, history depth, or whether interval falls back to a default. It essentially restates the annotation-covered basics.

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?

Two short sentences, with the resource stated first and the usage hint second. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence is thin enough that more substance could have fit at no cost to brevity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return shape (OHLC fields, volume presence, ordering, how many candles) and it does not. Combined with the unexplained symbol format, an agent cannot confidently invoke this without guessing.

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 only 50% (symbol is undocumented) and the description adds no parameter meaning at all — it does not state the expected symbol format (e.g. 'BTCUSDT') or explain the interval units beyond what the schema already lists. With half the parameters undocumented in both places, the description fails to compensate.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'OHLC candles for a symbol.' It is distinguishable from siblings like get_price or get_funding, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them. Purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

'Use this to compute indicators or check a setup before trading' gives a use context but names no alternatives (get_price, get_markets) or when-not-to-use conditions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit routing.

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