OHLCV candles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: results are oldest-first, volume is denominated in the base asset, and the data may be delayed or wrong — a data-quality caveat an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then intervals, then caveats. The legal/educational disclaimer is boilerplate but brief enough to not crowd out the operational content.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so partially: OHLCV column semantics are implied by the acronym, ordering and volume unit are stated. It omits how to page backwards through history with start_time/end_time, which is the main remaining gap for a 5-param 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 coverage is 80% — pool format, limit range, and second-based timestamps are already documented in the schema itself. The description repeats the interval list from the enum and adds no syntax or semantics beyond it, so 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 resource (OHLCV candles) bound to a specific object (a DeepBook pool) and adds the ordering guarantee (oldest first). It does not explicitly name which sibling it replaces, so an agent must infer the boundary versus get_volume, get_swing_range, or get_recent_trades.

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?

Enumerating the supported intervals implies the charting/time-series use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to an alternative such as get_recent_trades for raw fills. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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