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. It explains parameter behavior but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 structured as a clear docstring with Args. It is appropriately detailed without extraneous information. Each sentence adds value, though the format is slightly verbose.

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 6 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers all parameter semantics and behavior (e.g., count vs time interaction). It does not need to explain output due to schema. Missing behavioral details are scored elsewhere.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description adds all meaning. It provides clear explanations for all 6 parameters: instrument format, granularity options, count limit and interaction, price options, and RFC3339 time format. This significantly aids correct 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 clearly states 'Get historical candlestick data for an instrument.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context of sibling tools (like get_price for current price, list_instruments for listing) distinguishes it effectively.

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 explains parameter defaults and behavior (e.g., count ignored when from/to given), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool name and sibling contexts, but no direct guidance is provided.

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