Get klines (candlestick data)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds rate-limit cost ('Weight: 1') and a record cap, which is genuine extra context, but the stated 'Maximum 10,000 records' conflicts with the schema's limit maximum of 500, creating ambiguity rather than clarity.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first line. The opening line merely restates the title, making it slightly redundant, and the record-limit note is imprecise.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could usefully mention the returned OHLCV fields, ordering, or how endTime paginates, but it does not. With annotations covering safety and a fully described schema, it is adequate but not complete for a market-history tool.

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 100%: symbol, interval enum, limit range and endTime are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g. time ordering, pagination via endTime), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a concrete verb and resource ('Get OHLCV candlestick data'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling market tools like get_trades, get_depth and get_tickers. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings or scope itself against them beyond the data type.

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 on when to use klines versus the other market-data siblings, no mention of what symbol/interval combinations are valid, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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