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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the archive begins April 2026 (about six months), a candle exists only where trades occurred, and the response can be truncated or unavailable (truncated?, available? flags). Some of the depth limit is duplicated in the range/interval schema text, which keeps this from a 5.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded with the payload contents, and the explicit return-shape block is justified because no output schema exists. The prose is dense but every clause carries information; only the 'Returns:' literal could be tightened.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates every returned field, explains the gap semantics, the historical boundary, the 5,000-candle cap and the truncation flags. An agent has everything needed to call this and interpret the result.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds unit semantics the schema never states ('Prices are QU per unit'), clarifies that candles are 'a minute wide at the finest', and notes the 24h volume is aggregated across both markets regardless of the venue parameter.

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 states a concrete verb+resource: OHLCV candles plus QU volume, units and trade count, built from every trade on QX and QSwap. That is specific and unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-duplicate siblings qmax_get_price_history and qmax_get_tape, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of the three to reach for.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite qmax_get_price_history and qmax_get_tape sitting in the same family. The only orienting remark is interpretive ('a gap means no trades'), which explains output rather than telling the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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