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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying closed-candle computation and that the maths matches Dolphin's trading rules, though it does not cover response shape or limitations.

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?

The definition is a single dense sentence with no filler; the indicator list, pair scope, and closed-candle basis all earn their place. It is appropriately sized for a simple three-parameter read tool.

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?

The description gives enough context to call the tool correctly: exact indicators, periods, pair scope, and closed-candle behavior. Because there is no output schema, it could do slightly more to set expectations about the returned values, but the listed indicators imply the return content adequately.

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 100%, so symbol, venue, and timeframe semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the symbol is a Binance pair but adds no new syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond 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?

The description names the exact indicator set, the resource (a Binance pair), and the computation basis (closed candles), so the tool's purpose is clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings such as get_candles or get_price, which keeps it from 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?

Usage is implied by the mention of a Binance pair and closed-candle indicators, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of get_candles, get_price, or strategy-testing tools. The reader can infer the context, but alternatives are not routed.

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