moex_candles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: MSK timezone for all timestamps, the meaning of each interval code, and the non-obvious rule that weekend candles sit on Saturday/Sunday calendar dates. It omits pagination/limits, but for a read-only endpoint this is solid added context.

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?

Four short telegraphic sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (output columns, interval codes, timezone, weekend-date quirk) with zero filler and the most load-bearing info front-loaded.

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 9 params and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned OHLCV columns and explains interval and time semantics. It is nearly complete for calling the tool, though it says nothing about how secid/board identify a security or about result-size/CSV behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 coverage is only 67%, and the biggest hole is interval, which the schema leaves as a bare integer with no description. The description fully compensates by decoding 1/10/60/24/7/31/4 into minute/hour/day/week/month/quarter, which is essential to call the tool correctly. Other params (secid, board, columns, filename) remain undocumented in prose, so it is not a full 5.

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 names the exact resource (OHLCV candles) and enumerates the returned fields plus the interval units, so an agent knows precisely what data this yields. It stops short of an explicit verb and never contrasts itself with siblings like moex_trades or moex_quote, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 statement of when to prefer this tool over the other 14 siblings (e.g., candles vs tick trades vs quotes vs history). Usage is only implied by the resource name, with no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions given.

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