Bars in a time range

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive open-world tool. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: `TILLA_API_KEY` is required, `limit` is capped at 50000, and pagination via `more`/`next_start` is documented.

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 content is dense and front-loaded, with no wasted sentences. It could be structured more cleanly for readability, but given the number of parameters and the lack of schema descriptions, the compactness is largely appropriate.

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 9-parameter tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description covers the essential inputs, authentication, and pagination. It is not fully complete because `layer`/`lane` meanings and response expectations are only partially described, but it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries nearly all parameter meaning and does so well: it explains `series`, `markets`+`fields`, `layer`, `lane`, `start`/`end`, `period`, `limit`, and pagination. Some values remain abbreviated—`layer` and `lane` are enumerated but not semantically defined—so it falls just short of fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 makes clear that this tool retrieves a window of bars and explains the two primary ways to name data: `series` or `markets`+`fields`. It is specific about the resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from close siblings such as tilla_latest or tilla_sample.

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?

It gives useful invocation guidance, including exactly how to name series or markets/fields, and how to handle pagination when `more` is true. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over tilla_latest, tilla_sample, or other related siblings.

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