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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the data provenance ('HyperLiquid candles, real, not fabricated'), the default 24h window, and the supported asset classes. It says nothing about rate limits or failure behavior, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the returned fields come first, then usage triggers, then asset coverage and defaults. The parenthetical percentage list is slightly heavy, but no sentence is pure filler.

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 carries the burden of describing the return payload and does so explicitly (current/high/low/open plus three relative percentages). It also covers defaults, asset universe, data source, and the required symbol, leaving nothing essential for a correct call unspecified.

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 all three params (symbol, hours, market) are already documented, including the 24h default. The description restates the default window and lists asset examples (BTC, SMSN, SKHX, NVDA) but adds no new syntax, units, or constraints, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 specific verb+resource ('Get intraday/window OHLC stats for a ticker') and enumerates the exact fields returned (current, high, low, open, plus drawdown/bounce/since-open percentages). The high/low/open-relative framing is precise enough to separate it from the sibling get_price/get_stats tools even though they are not named.

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?

Gives explicit trigger phrases ('how far off the high/low', 'today's high and low', 'change since open', 'any high/low-relative move'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it (e.g. for a simple last-price lookup use get_price), so it stops short of a 5.

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