Get price candles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the newest candle is usually still forming and that lastCandleComplete signals closure, which is real behavioral context. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether data older than 'recent' is reachable, leaving notable gaps for a read tool with zero annotation 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?

Three tight sentences with no waste: the first defines the payload, the second handles staleness, the third defines averageRange. Content is front-loaded and each 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does so well (OHLCV per interval, oldest-first ordering, lastCandleComplete, averageRange). Minor gaps remain, e.g. behavior for an unknown symbol or how 'recent' relates to the count cap.

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 symbol, count (default 24, max 200) and interval (default 1h, enum values) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'for each interval' and adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Recent price history for a symbol as candles') and enumerates the returned fields (open, high, low, close, volume), so an agent knows exactly what this fetches. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like get_book or get_limits, so the differentiation work is left to the reader.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as get_book (order book depth) or get_limits, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Context only weakly implies 'fetch market data', which is not enough routing guidance.

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