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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds substantial data-semantics context not in any structured field: points before 'recordedSince' are hourly volume-weighted averages rebuilt from trades (marked src 'trades') while later points are recorded roughly every 10 minutes. That provenance detail directly affects how an agent interprets values.

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 dense sentences front-loading the return format, then the alternative tool. Every clause carries information — no filler, no restating of the name or title.

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 must carry the return shape, and it does: point fields (ms timestamp, price in QU, bid/ask/pool price for recent points) plus the 'src' marker and sampling cadence. Nothing essential for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'asset' and 'range' (including the 'all' ~six-month meaning). The description explains what the returned points mean but adds no extra meaning about manipulating the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource+scope: the asset's price over time returned as timestamped points in QU, including bid/ask/pool price for recent points. It is clearly distinguishable from qmax_get_candles, which it names as the OHLC/volume alternative.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to qmax_get_candles 'for OHLC and volume', which is a concrete alternative-selection rule. It does not state when-not to use this tool (e.g. prefer candles for charting), so it falls just short of full 5-level guidance.

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