get_candles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful context: it sends a command to an EA, blocks waiting for results up to 60 seconds, and returns OHLC data. This goes beyond a simple 'get' and alerts the agent to potential latency and synchronous behavior. It does not cover error handling or side effects, but the disclosed details are valuable.

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 compact with two clear sentences, and the main verb and object appear at the start. However, the Korean translation is a redundant duplicate for an English-language context, which prevents a perfect score. It is still concise and free of unnecessary filler.

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 relatively simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, the waiting behavior, and the response content. It does not detail the limit parameter's behavior, but the schema covers that. The absence of error-handling details is a minor gap, but overall the tool is understandable for selection and invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics; it only mentions the return value (OHLC) which is not directly tied to a parameter. The schema already explains symbol, timeframe, and limit with examples, so the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 the verb and resource: 'Get historical candle data for a forex symbol.' It is specific about the data type (candles) and the domain (forex). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool get_bulk_candles, which also fetches candle data, so it loses a point for lack of sibling distinction.

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 guidance is implied rather than explicit. The description gives context that this tool sends a command to an EA and waits, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over get_bulk_candles or other alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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