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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful constraints ('limit max 500', official API, allowed intervals), but does not disclose ordering, default values, return shape, or whether the operation is explicitly read-only.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the resource and then lists every parameter with its relevant constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only candle retrieval tool, the description covers source, exchanges, symbols, intervals, and limit without an output schema. It could mention the returned candle shape/ordering, but the description is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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, and it does: it specifies the exchange enum, allowed intervals, and the 500-candle limit. Symbol is named but not elaborated, which is a minor gap since its meaning is self-evident.

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 names the resource precisely ('OHLCV candles') and the data source ('official exchange API (binance or xt)'), which separates it from sibling quote/orderbook tools. It lacks an explicit verb, but the tool name and noun phrase leave no ambiguity about what is returned.

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 implies it is for historical/candle data by naming OHLCV candles, and the allowed exchanges and intervals define the scope. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling market-data tools like get_tickers or get_orderbook, nor any exclusions.

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