broker_get_asset_chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior context: the data source (Wallet/Broker vs Pro), the output shape (ISO 8601 date/time and quote-symbol price), and the public access marker.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose, data source caveat, required inputs, and return shape are all included without unnecessary detail.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description explains the return format: data points with ISO 8601 date/time and quote-symbol price. For a simple two-parameter read-only tool, this covers what an agent needs. It could go slightly deeper on exact candle fields, but the description is not incomplete enough to penalize heavily.

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 100%, and both pair and timeframe are fully documented with formats, examples, and enum values. The description reinforces that the price is in the quote symbol, but adds little beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it gets Wallet price history/candles for a pair and timeframe. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from Pro Trading, which separates it from sibling tools like pro_get_candles and broker_get_asset_price.

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 gives clear context: use this for Wallet/Broker-service price history, not Pro Trading data. It also states the required inputs (pair and timeframe). It does not name an explicit alternative tool, but the exclusion is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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