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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that trend statistics are pre-computed and lists them, which is useful return-content context, but it says nothing about read-only nature explicitly, rate limits, auth/payment needs, or pagination. Adequate but incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and payoff, then the interval set, then the use case. Minor redundancy from restating the tool name as a prefix, but no wasted prose.

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 helpfully enumerates the computed fields, which partially covers the return shape. However, given 5 fully undocumented parameters and no annotations, the definition is not complete enough to call the tool confidently — the coin/symbol and hours/limit ambiguities remain unresolved.

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 0% across all 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only clarifies the `interval` values. It leaves `coin` vs `symbol` — two apparently overlapping coin-identifying params — unaddressed, and never explains `hours` vs `limit` (two apparent lookback controls), which is a serious ambiguity.

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 names a specific resource (Hyperliquid perpetual OHLCV candles) and even enumerates the derived statistics returned, so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling candle/book/funding tools it should be chosen over, so the differentiation is left to the name alone.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: 'Use it for momentum, breakout and mean-reversion checks on perps,' and names the valid intervals. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or which sibling (e.g. the book, funding, or mids tools) to prefer for adjacent data.

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