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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the relative cost ('the cheapest call') and that values are raw OHLCV, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, page/ordering behavior, or what 'limit' actually controls at the boundary.

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, zero filler, with the resource definition front-loaded and the usage condition trailing. Every 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should hint at the return shape; it names OHLCV fields but not ordering, timestamp format, or how many rows 'limit' yields. Adequate for a simple read tool but leaves real gaps for correct invocation.

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. It does clarify that 'symbol' means a base asset on a USDT perpetual (beyond the bare enum tickers), but 'limit' (10-1000) and its default/effect are entirely unexplained, and 'interval' relies only on its enum.

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: a raw OHLCV candle series scoped to a single OKX USDT perpetual swap. The phrase 'compute your own indicators' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_indicators, though it doesn't name that sibling outright.

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?

'Use it when you want to compute your own indicators' gives a concrete selection condition and implies the alternative (a tool that returns precomputed indicators). No explicit when-not case or named alternative, but routing is clear.

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