atas_candles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states the 2000-bar limit, that the current forming candle is included, and that the history is tied to the chart the strategy is attached to. This goes beyond a generic 'get candles' statement, though it does not mention any latency, availability, or state assumptions.

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 description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the resource scope, states the bar limit, lists all returned fields, and gives a usage rationale. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 there are no parametersais, an output schema is present, and the tool is a straightforward read of candle history, the description covers the essential scope, limits, and output fields. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters)Skip, so the description is not required to explain argument semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing missing; the description focuses instead on the output content.

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 identifies a specific resource (candle history for the attached chart) and lists the exact data fields returned. It is distinct from sibling tools like atas_quote or atas_trades because it focuses on historical OHLCV/delta/time bars rather than a single quote, DOM, or trade stream.

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 phrase 'Essential for context and technical analysis' gives a clear use case, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as atas_snapshot or atas_quote. It implies usage but does not provide exclusions or alternative routing.

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