ta_slug_candlesticks

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It gives no information about whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The description is entirely silent on behavior.

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 extremely short (two words) but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks essential structure and fails to provide necessary details.

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 complexity of a candlestick data tool (4 parameters, many sibling tools, no output schema or annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain return format, pagination, or any other relevant context.

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 for all 4 parameters, with clear descriptions for each (e.g., slug, interval, timestamps). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score.

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 'Candlestick data' is vague and lacks a verb. It does not clearly state that the tool retrieves candlestick data for a specific asset. It is better than a tautology but still ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling TA tools (e.g., ema, rsi, macd). There is no mention of context or alternatives.

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