fomo_ohlcv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'Candles'. It does not state whether this is a read-only fetch, what data shape is returned, what time ranges are available, or how 'period' values are interpreted. Some behavior is implied, but not enough for an agent to know what will happen when the tool is invoked.

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, which makes it concise in word count, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It front-loads 'Candles' without grounding it in a clear operation, and the two fragments do not form a complete or useful definition for the tool. Every word is economical, but the content is insufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 absence of annotations, an output schema, and any parameter descriptions, the description should provide a much more complete picture. It only hints at chain and period formats and omits the required address parameter, return behavior, and usage context. An agent would not be able to call this tool reliably without additional inference or external knowledge.

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 examples 'chain like evm:4663' and 'period like 1m' add useful format meaning that the bare string schemas do not provide. However, the required 'address' parameter is entirely absent from the description, and no valid period values or chain formats are fully enumerated. The description partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage but leaves important gaps.

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 the tool deals with 'Candles', which combined with the tool name 'fomo_ohlcv' implies it fetches OHLCV/candlestick data. However, it lacks a clear verb and resource construction (e.g., 'Gets OHLCV candles for an address'), and the required 'address' parameter is not mentioned at all. It is understandable but vague, and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as fomo_token_details or fomo_trading_activity. The only usable guidance is the format hints for 'chain' and 'period', but these are parameter examples rather than usage context. This leaves the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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