Veroq

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully documents the return structure ('Array of candles with date, open, high, low, close, volume'), cost ('2 credits'), and specific behavioral trait ('Latest candle highlighted'). Minor deduction for absence of rate limiting or data freshness details.

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?

Uses structured headers (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE) for scannability. Every line conveys unique information; no tautology or filler. The example is compact yet illustrative, and the formatting efficiently separates functional purpose from operational constraints.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing the return array structure and fields. For a 3-parameter read-only data retrieval tool, the inclusion of cost and return format provides sufficient context, though data source freshness or pagination details would elevate it further.

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?

While the schema has 100% coverage providing baseline documentation, the description adds value through a concrete JSON example showing realistic parameter values (symbol: 'AAPL', interval: '1d', range: '3mo'), which helps clarify expected input formats beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource (OHLCV candlestick data for a stock ticker), explicitly enumerating the data fields (open, high, low, close, volume). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tool veroq_technicals by contrasting raw candlestick data with 'pre-computed indicators.'

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?

Explicitly states 'WHEN TO USE' with concrete scenarios (price chart analysis, pattern recognition, technical analysis feeding). Critically, it names the specific sibling alternative 'veroq_technicals' for pre-computed indicators, providing clear guidance on tool selection boundaries.

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