Get OHLCV candles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe read nature is known. The description adds valuable constraints: interval options (1m/1d) and a maximum of 200 candles per call, which go beyond the annotations and inform the agent about limits.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately adds key constraints. Every word contributes value; no fluff or repetition.

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 simple read-only candle listing tool with high schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It does not detail the return structure, but no output schema exists and the phrase 'OHLCV candles' implies the expected data shape. Given the moderate complexity, this is complete enough.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions interval allowed values and the 200-candle cap, but these are already present in the schema (enum and maximum). It adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the tool as returning OHLCV candles for a symbol, with an explicit purpose of trend and volatility analysis. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like toss_get_price (single price) and toss_get_recent_trades (trades).

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?

It states the tool is for trend and volatility analysis, providing clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the purpose implication is strong enough.

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