candles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds a real constraint beyond the schema ('ONE token'), which prevents misuse across multiple mints, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior for an ambiguous symbol, or pagination/return shape. Adequate but with a notable gap for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the resource and scope before the alternative routing. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must be self-sufficient; it covers resource, valid timeframes, size cap/default, and the nearest alternative. It omits symbol-ambiguity handling and any hint of the return structure, but for a simple read-only candle fetch it is largely complete.

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 must compensate. It does restate the timeframe enum values and the limit cap/default (which the schema already encodes) but adds one genuinely new fact: the required mint parameter also accepts a symbol. Partial compensation, hence the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('OHLC price candles'), scopes it precisely to 'ONE X1 token (mint or symbol)', and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling token_lookup. An agent can tell it apart from every other price-related sibling without opening the schema.

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?

Gives one clear routing rule: 'For the current price alone use token_lookup.' That is a genuine when-to-use-this-vs-alternative statement. It stops short of guidance on choosing a timeframe or limit, so it is clear context but not full when/when-not coverage.

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