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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait: volume/trade count is always 0 due to synthetic price. This is additional beyond what readOnlyHint and openWorldHint convey, but it doesn't cover other aspects like rate limits or pagination. Given the annotations exist and the description adds the synthetic-price warning, this is solid.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with key information (what it is, key caveat, recommendation, and detail parameter). Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: it explains the purpose, the main caveat (zero volume), and the alternative. It could mention the response format but it defers to docs. Given the complexity and that the schema is rich, this is nearly complete.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantics for 'detail' (summary vs full) and mentions the default, but doesn't significantly augment the parameter meaning beyond the schema. It does clarify that volume is zero, which relates to the data returned rather than parameters. Thus, a 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies it as 'Candlestick dari MARK PRICE' (mark price candlesticks), explicitly notes it is not transaction price, and references the alternative sibling tool binance_get_klines. This distinguishes it from many similar klines tools in the sibling list.

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?

It explicitly advises using binance_get_klines for normal market TA, and it mentions the use case for liquidation/funding reference. It also provides guidance on using the 'summary' default to save tokens versus 'full' detail, which guides parameter selection and usage context.

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