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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read. With no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned content (buy/sell split, delta, CVD) is genuinely useful disclosure that annotations cannot provide. However, it says nothing about recency, ordering (most-recent-first), the 200-candle cap, or default timeframe behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause describes a returned field. It is efficient, though it spends the entire budget on output content and none on the call contract, so brevity comes at the cost of orientation.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the shape of the payload but omits the timeframe parameter entirely (the one field the schema leaves undocumented), plus recency and ordering. Adequate at a minimum level, but an agent cannot fully predict what a call with timeframe='4h' and limit=48 returns.

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 67% — market and limit are documented in the schema, but timeframe has an enum and default of 1h with no description at all. The description contributes zero parameter meaning: no clarification of what a 'candle' limit counts, whether timeframe aggregates the returned volume/delta, or how markets map to instruments.

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 the resource and its distinctive content — OHLC candles with buy/sell volume split, per-candle delta, and CVD — which separates it from siblings like get_market_snapshot or get_large_trades. It lacks an explicit action verb (get/fetch) and never mentions market or timeframe scoping, so it is clear about what data comes back but not fully about what the call does.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over get_market_snapshot, get_large_trades, or get_order_book, and no prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the field list.

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