get_ohlcv

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It adds the useful trait 'raw' to signal unfiltered price data, and implies read-only behavior via 'Fetches', but does not mention pagination, rate limits, data currency, or other potential runtime behaviors. For a simple fetch tool this is adequate but not deeply transparent, meriting a mid-range score.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct job: state the function, give a primary use case, and point to alternatives. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, uses scannable phrasing, and contains zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

With a complete output schema and fully documented input schema, the description's job is to cover intent and use cases, which it does thoroughly. It also situates the tool among its siblings, covering the main contextual gap. For a low-complexity data-fetch tool, this description is complete and self-sufficient.

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 with names, defaults, and descriptions for all three parameters (count, symbol, interval), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already contains, but it does reinforce that the tool deals with symbols and bars, which indirectly supports parameter understanding. No further compensation is needed.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('raw OHLCV candlestick bars for a symbol'), making the tool's core function unmistakable. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming get_technical_indicators and get_market_analysis for different needs, so purpose is fully clarified within the tool ecosystem.

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 provides explicit 'Use when...' guidance for the primary scenario (price series for eyeballing or custom math) and clearly instructs which alternative tools to use instead for indicators or market verdicts. This is a textbook example of when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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