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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes a safe read operation. The description adds the return data type (OHLCV) and a common analysis use case, but does not disclose pagination, default time range, ordering, or the limit cap, so it only partially covers behavior beyond the annotation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a compact use case. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 five-parameter read-only market-data tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It omits the optional limit parameter and time-range behavior, and does not describe the candle return shape beyond the 'OHLCV' acronym, leaving some gaps an agent may need to infer from 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 coverage is 80%, with descriptions for market, resolution, fromISO, and toISO; only limit lacks a schema description. The description mentions market and resolution but adds no format, default, or temporal-window semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

The description states a specific verb (Get) and resource (OHLCV candles) with scope (for a market at a given resolution). It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_candles_multi, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Useful for trend/volatility analysis' gives a generic use case but does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_candles_multi or get_orderbook. There are no exclusion conditions or comparative guidance.

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