market_data_get_bars

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states it retrieves historical aggregated candles but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, whether it's a read-only operation, what happens with invalid time ranges, or pagination behavior. For a data retrieval tool with 4 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 a single, efficient Russian sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a data retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential action.

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 tool has 4 parameters with low schema coverage (25%) and no annotations, but does have an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool as historical data retrieval but lacks sufficient guidance on usage, parameters, and behavioral traits. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain significant.

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 only 25% (only the symbol parameter has a description), so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It mentions 'агрегированные свечи' (aggregated candles) which hints at the timeframe parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain start_time/end_time formats, symbol format requirements beyond the schema's pattern, or timeframe enum meanings. The description provides minimal value beyond what the sparse schema offers.

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 verb ('Получение' - getting/retrieving) and resource ('исторических данных по инструменту' - historical data for an instrument), specifying it provides aggregated candles. It distinguishes from siblings like market_data_get_last_quote (real-time quotes) and market_data_get_last_trades (recent trades). However, it doesn't explicitly mention it's for historical OHLC/bar data versus other historical data types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over market_data_get_last_quote for current prices, or assets_get for instrument metadata, or specify prerequisites like needing market data access. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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