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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description presents a pure data retrieval operation with no mention of side effects or destructive behavior. This is a direct contradiction and the description does not clarify the annotation, leaving the agent with conflicting signals.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the core purpose in a short clause and adding two cross-references. There is no fluff. However, it omits critical behavioral context, making it slightly too sparse for a balanced tool description.

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 should explain return values and behavior, but it does not describe the candle response format, pagination, or any side effects. Given the misleading destructiveHint annotation, the description needs to clarify whether this operation has any state-changing behavior. The tool is relatively simple, but these gaps make it incomplete.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds only a high-level grouping ('period and window') that does not enhance understanding of individual parameters. It meets the baseline but no more.

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 clearly states the tool returns OHLCV candles and specifies the filtering dimensions (period and window). It also distinguishes from siblings by pointing to get_tx_stats for volume aggregates and get_pair_liquidity for pool events, making the tool's unique role unambiguous.

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 gives explicit alternative guidance: 'Volume aggregates→get_tx_stats. Pool events→get_pair_liquidity.' This tells the agent when to use other tools instead, which is strong usage differentiation. The primary use case is inherent in 'OHLCV candles'.

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