market_get_klines

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it is deprecated, fetches from Binance, and returns specific OHLCV fields. It does not cover potential rate limits or error cases, but the annotation coverage lowers the 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?

Two concise sentences: the first delivers the deprecation warning and alternatives, the second states the core functionality and return values. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the most important usage guidance.

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?

Given the annotations and schema cover parameters and safety, the description is largely complete. It states what the tool returns (OHLCV fields) and the source (Binance), but does not describe error behavior or time-range semantics beyond 'requested range', which is slightly vague. Still, acceptable for a deprecated tool with clear alternatives.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides (symbol, interval enum, limit). It mentions 'specified interval' and 'requested range', but these are already implicit in 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 clearly states it fetches candlestick (OHLCV) chart data for a trading pair from Binance at a specified interval, and lists the returned fields. This specific verb+resource description distinguishes it from sibling market tools like ticker or order book.

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 explicitly declares the tool deprecated and directs users to ccxt_public_call and ccxt_describe_exchange for new integrations. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names alternatives, which is exactly what the dimension asks for.

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