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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds that it calls only a single GET endpoint and returns that response unchanged, which is useful scoping context, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, error handling, or default time-range assumptions beyond what the schema and annotations provide.

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 brief and mostly front-loaded, moving quickly to the endpoint and the OHLC data purpose. The opening 'Pyth Price Candles.' restates the title and is somewhat redundant, but the remaining sentences are efficient and informative.

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 the rich schema coverage, full annotations, and an output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to invoke it with a price feed address. It does not discuss pagination or time-range defaults, but those are covered by the schema.

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 schema already documents all parameters, including timeStart, timeEnd, resolution, page, limit, and eliminateCloseToOpenGaps. The description only reiterates that priceFeedAddress is a path parameter and does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: fetching historical OHLC candle data from Pyth oracle price feeds for a given price feed account. It distinguishes this from general price or token tools by naming Pyth oracle feeds and OHLC data, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get-pyth-price-history or get-market-candles.

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 appropriate usage by specifying 'historical OHLC data' and 'Pyth price feed account', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is present but not directive.

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