get_candles

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses defaults (interval=1d, limit=100), ordering (newest-first), and row structure (timestamp, OHLCV fields), going well beyond the schema. It clearly implies a read-only operation with no destructive effects.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by essential usage defaults and output format. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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 simple read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, defaults, ordering, and return format well. The only gap is the ambiguous 'custom time window' claim, since the schema offers no explicit start/end parameters, which could confuse users.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds defaults for interval and limit and gives an example market value, but it does not fully explain each parameter's meaning or how the 'custom time window' maps to the available parameters (interval, limit). This partial coverage merits a middle score.

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 tool returns 'Historical OHLCV candles' with a market example, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_ticker or get_trades. The phrase 'Use this for trend analysis, charts, or computing technical indicators' further clarifies its intended role.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for trend analysis, charts, or computing technical indicators over a custom time window,' providing clear context for when to choose this tool. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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