crypto_get_aggregate_bars

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' (implying a read operation) but provides no details on return format, pagination, timezone handling, or other behavioral traits. The minimal info does not contradict annotations (none exist) but is inadequate.

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 very concise: two short sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then the symbol format. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, so it's borderline between conciseness and under-specification.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain what 'aggregate bars' include, how date ranges work, default behavior, or how this relates to grouped daily bars. Only the basic purpose and symbol format are provided.

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 must compensate. It only explains the symbol format (X:BTCUSD), leaving 7 other parameters (sort, limit, adjusted, timespan, multiplier, from_date, to_date) without additional context. The description adds some value for the symbol param but fails to cover the rest.

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 the tool's function: 'Get aggregate bars for a crypto pair.' It also provides the symbol format (X:BTCUSD), which adds specificity and helps differentiate from stocks/forex aggregate bars. The verb 'Get' and resource 'aggregate bars' are precise.

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 implies usage for crypto pairs but does not explicitly mention when to use this over sibling tools like stocks_get_aggregate_bars or forex_get_aggregate_bars. The symbol format hint is a minor usage guideline, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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