Fetch historical OHLCV (candlestick) data for a liquidity pool using network, pool address, and date range to analyze price and volume trends.
Get historical OHLCV (candlestick) data for a liquidity pool
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| network | Yes | Network name | |
| end_date | No | End date (YYYY-MM-DD) - optional | |
| interval | No | Time interval: 5m, 15m, 30m, 1h, 4h, 1d, 1w (default: 1d) | |
| start_date | Yes | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| pool_address | Yes | Pool contract address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state permissions, rate limits, error behavior, or data source, leaving significant gaps for a data retrieval tool.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to gaps in other dimensions rather than being a conciseness issue.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally explain return format or data limitations. The schema fully documents parameters, making the definition minimally adequate, but it omits what the response looks like and any constraints on data availability.
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 every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('historical OHLCV (candlestick) data') scoped to 'a liquidity pool', making the operation clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like get_pool_analytics or get_technical_indicators, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent receives no guidance on selecting this over other pool-related analytics tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.