Get HoodGrow OHLC price candles

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses pricing, unknown-symbol failure behavior, Chainlink feed sourcing, 15-minute refresh cadence, observedAt freshness, volumeUsd/swapCount null backfill behavior, and priceSource fallback semantics. This is far richer than the structured annotations alone.

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 dense sentences convey purpose, defaults, limits, pricing, failure modes, data source, freshness, and result fields without filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains key return-value aspects such as candle buckets, volumeUsd/swapCount, observedAt, and priceSource. It also covers limits, defaults, cost, and error behavior, making the tool sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it confidently.

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 100%, but the description adds meaningful parameter behavior: from/to default to 30 days, the window is capped at 730 days, and unknown symbols fail. It does not need to repeat schema enum or type details, and the added semantics justify a score above baseline.

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 opens with 'OHLC price candles for backtesting,' clearly naming the specific resource and intent, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trades or get_markets by emphasizing bucketed candle history sourced from Chainlink feeds.

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 clear context: this is for backtesting OHLC price data, defaults to 30 days, caps at 730 days, and notes failure on unknown symbols. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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