candlesGemini crypto exchange OHLC candles for a crypto pair. Time frames 1m, 5m, 15m, 30m, 1hr, 6hr, 1day. Use for charting and backtesting on Gemini.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | ||
| time_frame | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the exchange source and time frames, which is consistent but not highly informative beyond the annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: first states what it provides, second lists time frames and use cases.
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 existing annotations and an output schema, the description sufficiently defines the tool's purpose, parameters, and use cases. Could add a note about output format but not required.
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 has 0% description coverage and no enums. The description lists time frames like '1m, 5m, …' giving hints for the time_frame parameter, and implies symbol is a pair like 'btcusd' from examples. This partially compensates but could be more explicit.
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 it provides OHLC candles for a crypto pair on Gemini, lists all supported time frames, and mentions use cases (charting and backtesting), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like ticker or trades.
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 explicitly recommends the tool for charting and backtesting on Gemini, giving clear context for use. It does not provide exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools serve overlapping research purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, entity_profile, compare_entities), which could confuse an agent. However, descriptions help differentiate them by use case (single vs multi-part, grounded vs standard, etc.). Some overlap remains.
Tool names mix patterns: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), others are noun_phrase (price_feed, recent_alerts) or adjective_noun (ticker_v2). No strong naming convention, but all use snake_case consistently, making them readable.
40 tools is on the high side for a single server, covering both Gemini exchange data and Pipeworx's broad knowledge tools. While each tool serves a purpose, the scope feels broad, and some tools could be separated into dedicated servers.
The Gemini exchange tools cover essential read-only data (order book, candles, ticker, trades), but lack order placement, likely intentionally. The Pipeworx tools provide extensive research capabilities across many domains, leaving few gaps for the stated purposes.