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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the upstream source (Kraken public OHLC), that bars are in UTC, that only closed/incomplete-free bars are returned, and that results are ordered newest first. Read-only nature is implied by 'public OHLC' but never stated outright, and nothing is said about behavior on an unknown symbol.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then provenance and constraints in compact clauses. The indicator list is dense but each item is genuinely informative; the 'not financial advice' sentence is boilerplate but short.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values — and it does, enumerating the exact indicator set and ordering. Combined with 100%-covered input schema, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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%, with the limit range (1-200), default 24, symbol example, and timeframe enum all documented in the schema itself. The description adds only that a single symbol is queried; it says nothing extra about timeframe choices or how limit interacts with the indicator windows (e.g. long SMAs need enough bars). Baseline 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?

States a specific resource and scope: recent bars for one symbol, with an explicit enumeration of every computed indicator (SMA 20/50/200, EMA 12/26, MACD, RSI(14), Bollinger, ATR(14), drawdown). An agent immediately knows this returns OHLC plus technicals rather than raw rows. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the sibling market_snapshot, which is the nearest plausible 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?

No statement of when to use this versus market_snapshot, query_sql, or column_statistics. The only guidance-like sentence is a legal disclaimer ('not financial advice'), which does not help tool selection. Usage must be inferred entirely from the enumerated indicator list.

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