Klines

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: price_type routing, spot endpoint difference, interval range, and limit snapping to a priced tier capped at 1000.

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 and information-dense: resource definition, endpoint routing, interval/limit behavior, and a concrete example in a few lines. Every clause adds value.

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 5-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: symbol, interval, limit, price_type semantics, and spot/futures routing. No critical gap prevents an agent from selecting or calling this tool correctly.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It meaningfully explains price_type values, interval range, limit cap, and the market distinction between futures and spot. It does not spell out every parameter default, but the example reinforces usage.

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 identifies the resource as Klines (OHLCV) and explains exactly what the tool provides, including the endpoint-selection logic for futures price types and spot. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like order_book, trades, and oi_snapshot.

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 gives concrete guidance on when each variant applies: price_type last|mark|index routes to different futures endpoints, while spot ignores price_type and uses a different endpoint. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the intended usage is clear.

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