mb_get_candles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic purpose and lists resolutions; it does not disclose how 'from' and 'countback' interact, the ordering of returned candles, whether the current forming candle is included, or any rate limits. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not explicitly stated, leaving significant gaps beyond the schema.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second lists resolutions, which is a useful quick reference despite being redundant with the schema enum. No fluff; 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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers all parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain the return structure or edge cases like countback overriding 'from'. It provides enough context to understand the basic use case but lacks detail on data ordering, limits, or potential pitfalls. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema; it restates the resolution enum but does not explain the relationship between 'from', 'to', and 'countback', which would be genuinely useful. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description only marginally supplements it.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get OHLCV candlestick data for charting and technical analysis.' This is a specific verb + resource combination that differentiates it from sibling tools like mb_get_trades or mb_get_orderbook, which serve different data needs.

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 phrase 'for charting and technical analysis' gives clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to infer that raw trades would use mb_get_trades and order book data would use mb_get_orderbook. No explicit exclusions are mentioned, hence a 4.

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