get_ohlc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states 'OHLC candlestick history', implying output data, but does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, pagination, or any constraints beyond the schema. It's minimally transparent.

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?

Extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the core purpose and add a usage hint. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should compensate. It mentions 'OHLC candlestick history' but not the return format, ordering, or any limitations beyond 'Starter tier'. For a simple 3-parameter tool, it's moderately complete but missing key details for an agent to fully interpret results.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (id, days, vs). The description adds no extra parameter information. Baseline of 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 clearly states the tool returns OHLC candlestick history for a token, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('candlestick history'). It mentions 'Starter tier' which hints at limitations, but does not explicitly distinguish from similar tools like get_history_prices or get_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?

It provides some context ('Starter tier', 'useful for technical-setup agents and backtesting'), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, nor alternatives. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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