Recent Candles

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint: the tool is 'intentionally capped to the most recent 12 hours so agents do not fetch huge minute-bar dumps in one call,' which explains a deliberate data-scope design. It does not describe response format or pagination, but the safety profile is well covered by 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?

Three sentences each earn their place: the first defines the core action and resource, the second gives use cases, and the third explains the cap and rationale. The most important information is front-loaded, with 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?

The description adequately covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and the intentional 12-hour limit, while annotations cover safety. Without an output schema, the exact response fields (e.g., OHLCV values, timestamps) are not explicitly described, though 'candle history' is a generally understood structure. This minor gap keeps it from being fully complete.

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 descriptions cover both visible parameters (symbol and limit) with defaults, bounds, and explanations. The tool description adds no new parameter meaning beyond restating the 12-hour cap and the 1-minute interval, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not compensate beyond it.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('recent 1-minute candle history for a market'), and its scope ('capped to the most recent 12 hours'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like market_price or market_orderbook by focusing on high-frequency candle data with an explicit time bound.

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?

It explicitly recommends the tool for 'short intraday structure checks, recent momentum, and micro-pullback analysis' and warns that it is capped to 12 hours, implying it is not for longer-range analysis. However, it does not name an alternative tool for longer histories or explicitly state when not to use it.

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