get_coin_ohlc_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about plan requirements ('requires the ultra plan or higher'), which is not in the schema, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format. It adequately covers the basic operation but misses deeper behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a critical constraint in the second, with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized, efficiently conveying essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required) and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the purpose, plan requirement, and implies time-series data. However, it could improve by hinting at the response structure or data format, as no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'interval' affects data granularity or 'limit' impacts results. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific action ('Get OHLCV data') and resource ('for the coin throughout time'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_coin_price_history or get_coin_market_cap_history by specifying OHLCV metrics. It provides a precise verb+resource combination with no ambiguity.

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 states when to use this tool ('Get OHLCV data for the coin throughout time') and includes a prerequisite ('requires the ultra plan or higher'), providing clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as get_coin_price_history for simpler price data.

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