get_paxg_ohlcv_realtime

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the on-the-fly aggregation behavior and parameter bounds, but omits the return format, how in-progress bars are handled, and any streaming/latency caveats.

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?

One purpose sentence plus a compact argument list. Every line earns its place; the example is slightly redundant but harmless. The tool's purpose is stated first.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with no output schema, it covers purpose and both parameters adequately. However, it lacks usage-vs-alternative guidance and does not describe the return structure beyond the self-explanatory 'OHLCV bars'.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates: both parameters get units, valid ranges, semantics, and a clarifying example (10 = 10-second bars). This is exactly the compensation needed when the schema is bare.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and identifies the resource precisely (OHLCV bars from the PAXG tick stream). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_gold_ohlcv (standard gold OHLCV) and get_paxg_tick (raw tick vs. aggregated bars).

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?

Usage context is implied by 'tick stream on the fly,' suggesting real-time PAXG aggregation, but the description never explicitly states when to use this tool vs. alternatives or mentions exclusions. An explicit contrast with get_gold_ohlcv or get_paxg_tick would elevate this.

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