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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by noting that 'Market DATA, not advice' and that an empty bars list is normal behavior, which provides context beyond what annotations convey.

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 three sentences plus a route hint, front-loading the core purpose. It is concise but could be slightly trimmed (e.g., 'Market DATA, not advice' is a bit tangential). Every sentence serves a purpose, but there's minor redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the edge case of an empty bars list, mentions the API route, and provides usage context. It is nearly complete for a read-only data retrieval tool.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (symbol, tf, limit) with defaults and constraints. The description mentions symbol and timeframe in passing but does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool retrieves recent OHLCV candle bars for a symbol at a chosen timeframe, explicitly calling it 'the raw price/volume history other tools are derived from.' It distinguishes from siblings by stating its role as base data for other tools and lists specific use cases like inspecting trend, range, volatility, and volume profile.

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 implies usage for raw price data and mentions feeding one's own indicators, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_heatmap, get_market, or get_signals. No direct comparisons or exclusion criteria are provided.

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