Fetch OHLCV candlestick data for a token by chain and resolution, optionally filtered by start/end timestamps or candle limit. No authentication required.
Get OHLCV candlestick data for a token. No auth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End Unix timestamp | |
| from | No | Start Unix timestamp | |
| chain | Yes | Chain identifier | |
| limit | No | Number of candles | |
| resolution | Yes | Candle resolution | |
| tokenAddress | Yes | Token contract address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.11.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact – no authentication is required – but omits pagination, default limit, and how resolution interacts with the from/to range.
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, front-loaded with the purpose before the auth note. Nothing is wasted, though the sparse content borders on under-specification for a six-parameter tool.
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?
With no output schema, the description should carry return-shape context; it names 'OHLCV candlestick data' but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or default time ranges. The schema covers parameters, but time-series-specific behavior is left unstated.
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%, so all six parameters (tokenAddress, chain, resolution, from, to, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default-value meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 specific verb (get) and a distinctive resource (OHLCV candlestick data) scoped to a token. No sibling exposes candlestick data, so the agent can differentiate it, though the description never says so explicitly.
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 only usage signal is 'No auth,' which is a precondition rather than guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_token_trades or get_mark_price. No when/when-not conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.