Get OHLCV candles

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds valuable context: paper trading only, virtual funds, not financial advice, and candle ordering (oldest to newest, timestamps in seconds). No contradiction with annotations.

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 paragraph that is dense but efficient, covering all necessary information without extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, usage, constraints, and paper trading context fully, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond schema by explaining the mapping for range values (e.g., 1H=60x1-minute) and the default for fiat. This adds moderate value beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Clearly states it provides OHLCV candles for indicator/momentum strategies, mentioning specific use cases like RSI and moving averages. The verb 'get' and resource 'candles' are explicit, and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on candle data.

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?

Provides prerequisite to use resolve_symbol first, explains how range selects both lookback and resolution, and includes context about paper trading. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, missing some guidance.

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