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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by stating 'no account access, no order placement or fund transfers' and 'not investment advice.' This reinforces the read-only nature and provides user-facing context beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose (trend-index OHLCV). It uses concise routing notes and safety disclaimers without redundancy. A few segments could be merged, but overall it's efficient and structured logically.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with a rich output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, and safety. It doesn't describe the output format or pagination, but the output schema exists, so this is not a gap. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to call it.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema—it mentions 'optional indicator bundle' which maps to with_indicators, but doesn't clarify other parameters like start_time/end_time or size/limit. It does not need to repeat schema details, so this is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns trend-index OHLCV for symbols with an optional indicator bundle. Distinguishes from siblings by naming specific alternatives: marketdetail_get_kline for fine intervals, get_indicator_history for columns, and get_technical_analysis for chart-label snapshots.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives based on use case: fine intervals to marketdetail_get_kline, column-specific needs to get_indicator_history, and chart-label snapshots to get_technical_analysis. Also clarifies this is for trend-index data and adds a read-only safety note.

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