get_candles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the sort order (oldest first) and that data is "recent" (implying a bounded lookback), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, data source, or how the default count/timeframe behave.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the key ordering guarantee front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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?

For a no-annotation, low-coverage, no-output-schema tool, the description is under-specified: an agent cannot tell the maximum count, symbol conventions, or timeframe semantics. The content that exists is correct but insufficient for confident invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% and all three parameters (symbol, count, timeframe) are undocumented anywhere. The description only hints at the data shape via "OHLCV"; it adds no meaning for symbol format, count limits, or the timeframe enum, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States the specific resource (OHLCV candles) and the ordering guarantee (oldest first), which distinguishes it from get_tick and get_indicator. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings in prose.

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?

"Use for chart analysis" is a thin purpose statement rather than guidance. It never says when to prefer this over get_tick, get_indicator, or get_history, nor when-not to call it.

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