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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral details: supported intervals (5m, 1h, 1d), lookback limitations (up to 48h for 5m, full history for 1d), and that each bar includes a source field (dex/oracle). These details are beyond what the schema provides.

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, containing only two sentences. The first sentence defines the core purpose, the second covers intervals/limitations and output detail (source). Every word adds value, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's modest complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers the purpose, data scope, and a key output attribute. However, it could be more explicit about the return format (e.g., array of candles) or default behavior for 1d with hours set, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

The description adds crucial meaning to the symbol_or_address parameter by stating it accepts a symbol or 0x address, which the schema does not describe. It also explains the relationship between hours and interval (e.g., 5m limited to 48h), supplementing the schema's generic descriptions and covering the 67% schema coverage gap.

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 that the tool returns OHLCV candles for one token, identified by symbol or 0x address, and specifies the intervals (5m, 1h, 1d) and lookback windows. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like get_token or search_tokens, which serve different data purposes.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when OHLCV candle data for a token is needed, matching the terminal charts. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous given the sibling set contains no other candle tool.

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