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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the data comes from Chord's own index rather than aggregated external sources — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how gaps/missing candles are handled.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves useful context unsaid rather than adding any waste.

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 OHLCV abbreviation and the 'from Chord's own index' provenance note cover the essentials for a read-only time-series endpoint, and annotations carry the safety profile. Missing only secondary details like row ordering and default-window behavior, which the schema partly signals via defaults.

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%: timeframe, chain, limit bounds, and chain-specific address formats are all documented in the schema itself. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete resource and return shape: OHLCV candles for a token, sourced from Chord's own index. That provenance phrase distinguishes it somewhat from trade- or pool-oriented siblings like chord_trades, though it never names an explicit alternative.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus chord_trades or chord_token, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the price-history endpoint from the name alone.

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