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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying a prerequisite ('needs Gate base URL') and reinforcing that it is read-only public research data with no trading capabilities. It adds context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, all informative: main purpose, alternative tool, and safety/usage constraints. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description covers the core essentials: what it does, when to use it, prerequisites, and safety. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide and execute a call, though it doesn't mention rate limits or custom return handling, which are minor given the structured schema.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description's mention of 'fine intervals such as 1m or 5s' duplicates the schema's timeframe examples and doesn't add new meaning. It does not compensate for any gaps because none exist, but it also doesn't add extra value beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb-resource: 'Exchange pair or contract candles', and specifies fine intervals (1m, 5s). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool: 'Trend-index OHLCV or indicator bundle→markettrend_get_kline', so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns and how it differs from similar tools.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Trend-index OHLCV or indicator bundle→markettrend_get_kline' directs to an alternative for different data needs. It also states non-usage: 'No account access, no order placement or fund transfers', clarifying it is for public research only.

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