Crypto OHLCV bars

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds only minor value by noting that volume is fractional base-asset volume. No mention of rate limits, error behavior, or pagination details beyond what schema provides.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: identifies the data type and clarifies volume units.

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?

Lacks output schema, but description covers the main return fields (OHLCV bars) and volume unit. For a simple historical data tool, this is nearly complete, though it could explicitly list the fields.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond the symbol example and volume note, which is not an input parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Historical OHLCV bars for a USD-quoted crypto symbol' which identifies the specific asset class and quote currency. It distinguishes from sibling tools like forex_bars and stocks_bars by specifying crypto and USD-quoted.

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 implies usage for historical crypto data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like forex_bars or stocks_bars. No exclusion criteria or alternative names are provided.

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