broker_get_asset_chart

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

The description indicates the tool is public via '[PUBLIC]' and explains return format, but with no annotations, it lacks explicit statements on idempotency, side effects, or rate limits. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action scope, service differentiation, and parameter/return summary. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

The description adequately covers the return format and required parameters. Without an output schema, it explains what data points contain. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is sufficiently complete, though a note on data point count could enhance it.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying that price is in the quote symbol from the pair, which is beyond the schema descriptions. It also provides an example pair format.

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 verb 'Gets', resource 'Wallet price history (candles/chart)', and differentiates from Pro Trading via explicit mention. It also specifies required parameters pair and timeframe, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states that these prices reflect the Wallet/Broker service, not Pro Trading, which provides clear context for when to use this tool versus the sibling pro_get_candles. However, it does not include explicit when-not or alternative tool names.

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