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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds minimal behavioral context by explaining the effect of step and limit on the returned data, but does not disclose rate limits, auth needs, or data freshness. Given strong annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then packs parameter semantics efficiently. No fluff or redundant phrases; every word earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described. However, the description omits any mention of the exclude_current_candle parameter, which is a real boolean input that affects whether the current in-progress candle is included. Given zero schema property descriptions and six parameters, this is a noticeable gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains step (candle duration in seconds), limit (caps candle count), and start/end (optional Unix range), but does not explain exclude_current_candle and leaves currency_pair implicit. This partially covers the six parameters but leaves a notable 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 the tool fetches OHLC candlestick data from Bitstamp for a currency pair, with specific detail that step and limit control candle duration and count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ticker, order_book, or trading_pairs by naming the exact resource and data type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or reference sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer that OHLC data is needed. While 'candlestick data' implies charting use, this is not explicit.

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