qt_get_candles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds 'with ASCII chart' as an output behavior; it does not disclose read-only status, authentication needs, default interval behavior, timezone handling, pagination, limits, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and a notable output feature. However, it is so minimal that it leaves out important operational detail, so it does not earn a 5.

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 four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse to enable confident invocation. It fails to explain timestamp formats, what happens when interval is omitted, possible output variants, or how the ASCII chart is rendered. An agent would have to guess at several important invocation details.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions none of the four parameters by name. The agent gets no additional meaning about symbolId, startTime, endTime, or interval beyond their raw names. The description does nothing to compensate for the schema's complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('historical candle data'), and even indicates the output style ('with ASCII chart'). It is easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as qt_get_quotes or qt_analyze_technicals, leaning on the term 'candles' to imply the 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus related siblings. The description does not mention that qt_get_quotes is better for current prices, or that qt_analyze_technicals might be a better choice for analysis. An agent receives no contextual decision-making support.

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