get_candles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function and omits details about time range defaults, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a data retrieval tool.

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 description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Get', containing no redundant information or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide richer context about expected return values, time range behavior, and any implicit constraints. It only states the core function, leaving the agent uncertain about how to use the tool correctly (e.g., meaning of from/to, candle limits).

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (instrument, interval, from, to) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as default behaviors or formatting nuances. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 'Get OHLCV candlestick data for an instrument' clearly states the specific verb (get), resource (OHLCV candlestick data), and object (instrument). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prices (current prices) and get_instruments (instrument metadata).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_prices or get_portfolios. It does not mention any constraints or preferred context, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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