Get OHLCV candles

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

The description adds useful behavioral context: data source with fallback, oldest-first ordering, and both epoch seconds and ISO timestamps in UTC. However, with no annotations at all, it does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or implications of the two-provider fallback; the full burden is on the description and it covers only part of that burden.

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 compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is returned, the data source fallback, and the response ordering/timestamp format. No filler or repetition of the title or schema field descriptions.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should go further. It states ordering, timestamps, and source, but omits the response format, failure behavior, fallback trigger conditions, and any limits on historical depth—important details for an agent that must call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond context like ordering and timestamps, keeping it at the baseline expected when structured schema is complete.

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 states a specific verb and resource: historical open/high/low/close/volume candles for one instrument. It is clearly distinguishable from its siblings—tv_quote for current pricing, tv_indicators for computed metrics, and tv_search_symbol for discovery.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The use case is implied by 'Historical... candles for one instrument,' but the description never names alternatives or tells the agent to prefer tv_quote for live prices or tv_indicators for derived values.

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