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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a critical trait: 'Costs $0.005 USDC on Base via x402.' However, it omits other key behavioral details such as read-only nature, rate limits, payment requirements per call, or response format.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then cost. It is appropriately sized and contains no filler, though it could be slightly more structured by hinting at key parameters or output.

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 a paid data tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and cost but omits usage guidance, sibling differentiation, parameter context, and return format. An agent would need to infer much from the schema alone.

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 80%, which is high. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. Parameters like product_id, granularity, and time range are fully documented in 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 states a specific data type and purpose: 'Recurring OHLCV candle data for trading, indicators and market monitoring.' It clearly identifies the resource (OHLCV candles) but does not differentiate this tool from similar siblings such as canonical-crypto-ohlcv or crypto-recent-trades.

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 provides broad use cases ('trading, indicators and market monitoring') but no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like canonical-crypto-ohlcv or crypto-24h-stats. There are no exclusions or conditions for use.

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