Get Ohlcv

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this (e.g., 'raw' data, but no return format, pagination, or rate limits). Given the strong annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate—the description does not contradict annotations but also does not significantly enrich behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and immediately follows with usage guidance and a sibling alternative. Every sentence earns its place—no filler or redundancy.

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 relatively simple fetch tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates what the tool returns ('candlestick bars') and when to call it. It lacks explicit return-structure details, but the name and description make the likely output clear. Complete enough given the low complexity and rich annotations.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including defaults for count and interval, and the symbol example. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is correct when 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 identifies the tool as fetching raw OHLCV candlestick bars for a symbol, using a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('raw OHLCV candlestick bars'). It also distinguishes itself from get_market_analysis, which provides indicators, making the purpose unambiguous even among siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('when you need the price series itself — to eyeball recent action or do your own maths') and provides a clear alternative ('For indicators and a reading of them use get_market_analysis'). This is a model of usage guidance, covering both when and when-not.

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