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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: the api:read auth requirement, server-side caps on returned points, and the meta envelope. It doesn't detail what happens when a range exceeds caps (truncation vs error), but the added auth and cap disclosure is meaningful.

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-loads the core statement, then packs symbol format, intervals, defaults, and return shape into dense but readable prose. No filler sentences; slightly information-dense but each clause 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so ('[timestamp, {o,h,l,c,v}] series with a meta envelope'). Auth requirement and defaults round out the picture; only edge-case behavior for oversized ranges is unstated.

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 only 40%, but the description compensates well—it documents the instrument_id format (bare Hyperliquid symbols vs dex-prefixed HIP-3 like xyz:TSLA), enumerates intervals, and explains start/end defaults. Only max_points behavior (beyond the cap note) is left to the schema.

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 verb+resource ('OHLCV price bars for an instrument over a time range') and clarifies scope via defaults and interval set. It does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling get_prices, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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?

Provides useful context: symbol values come from scan_markets and start/end default to the last 24h. However, it never states when to choose this over get_prices or get_live_snapshot, leaving the main selection decision implicit.

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