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 the OHLCV shape and the single-market scoping, but says nothing about limits (max 500), pagination, or what happens when no market is supplied.

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 and returned fields front-loaded. The trailing sample question is a small but genuinely useful usage cue rather than filler, so nothing feels padded.

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?

The output schema and rich annotations relieve the description of explaining return values and safety, and the schema covers all parameters. The gap is that no parameter is required, yet the description asserts results are 'for one market' without saying which market is used by default or whether symbol/pair_id is effectively mandatory.

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 100%, so limit, price, resolution, symbol and pair_id are all documented with defaults and enums in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies; 'for one market' hints at the symbol/pair_id choice but does not explain their relationship.

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?

States a specific resource (price candles) and enumerates the fields returned (open, high, low, close, volume) plus the scope constraint 'for one market'. That is enough to separate it from siblings like get_trades or get_orderbook, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 sample question ('How did ETH move over the last day?') implies the use case of charting/summarizing price history, which is helpful context. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_trades, get_orderbook, or get_markets instead, so the routing is left implicit.

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