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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the load and does real work: it declares the default price basis as mark, explains why (last-traded goes stale on thin markets), and states that omitting start/end returns the most recent candles. It doesn't cover ordering, pagination/truncation behavior when a range exceeds the 500-candle cap, or error behavior for unknown pairs (though the schema covers that last point).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the default and its rationale, then the timestamp convention. Every sentence carries distinct information and none restates the tool name.

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 six-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers the choices an agent is most likely to get wrong (price basis, timestamp units, default range). Remaining gaps are minor: what the returned candle fields look like and how range plus limit interact when both are supplied.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents millisecond units, the price enum with mark default, and the limit cap. The description reinforces the millisecond convention and adds one genuinely new rule — omit start/end to get the most recent candles — but otherwise repeats schema content rather than extending it.

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?

"Candlestick history for one market" gives a specific resource (OHLCV candles) and scope (single market), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like everstrike_trades, everstrike_depth, and everstrike_ticker. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

The description gives usage guidance for parameters and defaults (use mark unless you need last/index; omit start/end for recent candles) but never states when to choose this tool over everstrike_trades or everstrike_ticker for price history versus snapshots/tick data. Usage is implied by the phrase "candlestick history" rather than spelled out.

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