get_ohlcv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral fact ('No auth'), which is real added context, but says nothing about rate limits, pagination, default time window, or what happens when 'from'/'to' are omitted.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the auth note could be folded more usefully into context about optional time-range behavior.

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 6-parameter tool with 3 required params, optional time bounds, a limit, and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits what the defaults are, what the return shape looks like (candles vs. arrays), and how limit interacts with from/to.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters and the resolution enum. The description adds no format or default guidance beyond the schema, 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 specific verb and resource ('Get OHLCV candlestick data for a token'), which is precise enough to distinguish it from the trading/market-data siblings. It does not, however, name any sibling (e.g. get_native_prices or get_token_trades) that an agent might confuse it with.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the auth note, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the charting/candle source rather than the price or trade-history tools.

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