get_candle_data

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, which doesn't convey safety or mutability. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't disclose rate limits, data volume, error behavior, or authentication needs. It adds little beyond the verb itself.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and efficiently enumerate the valid intervals. No filler or redundant information.

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?

With 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't describe the return structure, pagination/limits, date handling specifics, or the relationship of symboltoken to other tools like search_scrip. An agent would find it difficult to use effectively without supplementary information.

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 provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats interval values that already exist in the enum, adding no new semantic meaning. It doesn't clarify how to source symboltoken or format dates beyond what the schema states.

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 'Get historical OHLCV candle data for a symbol' with a specific verb and resource, and lists intervals. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_ltp or get_market_quote, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what the tool does, without mentioning when-not-to-use or naming alternative tools. The 'historical' qualifier implies a use case but no clear direction is given.

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