Get OHLCV candles

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details like candle ordering and timestamp format, but also includes extensive, irrelevant execution policy details (paper fills, fees) that may confuse the agent. 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 excessively long and includes unrelated execution policy information (paper fills, fees) that does not belong in a read-only candle retrieval tool. It could be cut by half without losing essential guidance. The front-loading is adequate but wasted by the extensive tail.

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 parameter intent and data format, but the inclusion of irrelevant execution details detracts from completeness. The core data retrieval behavior is adequately described.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already describes parameters. The description adds value by explaining the range resolution mapping and emphasizing the need to resolve_symbol for coinId. It does not reproduce schema fields but complements them concisely.

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 tool provides OHLCV candles for indicator/momentum strategies, specifying the data format and prerequisite to resolve_symbol. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which offer 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?

The description explicitly instructs to use resolve_symbol first to obtain the coinId, and explains the range parameter mapping (e.g., 1H=60x1-minute). While it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool, the context is clear enough for typical usage scenarios.

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