Get HoodGrow OHLC price candles

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds rich context: price history collection interval, volume fields and null backfill, default range and 730-day cap, x402 pricing and API key free tier, failure on unknown symbol, Chainlink on-chain source, 15-minute refresh, snapshot semantics with observedAt, and priceSource resolution. This greatly exceeds the annotations' coverage.

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?

Every sentence carries distinct information: purpose, data bucketing, volume fields, defaults/caps, pricing, error case, source, and snapshot semantics. No fluff or redundancy; it is structured and information-dense without being verbose.

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?

There is no output schema, so description carries burden for return values. It explains volume fields, observedAt, and priceSource, but doesn't explicitly enumerate the OHLC price fields. Since the title and 'OHLC price candles' imply open/high/low/close, this is a minor gap; overall the description is quite complete for a data-fetching tool.

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 covers all 5 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond schema: default behavior for from/to ('Defaults to the last 30 days'), window cap, and failure on unknown symbol. It doesn't detail syntax but clarifies defaults and constraints, earning a 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'OHLC price candles for backtesting', and clarifies data bucketing from ~15 min history. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_trades or get_markets by focusing on OHLC candles and backtesting.

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 mentions 'for backtesting' and provides defaults, caps, cost, and failure mode for unknown symbol. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the use case is clear enough to guide an agent. It also notes the data source and refresh behavior, providing context for when this tool is appropriate.

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