getMarkPriceKline

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly and openWorld, and the description adds complementary behavioral details: it requires no authentication, returns data in reverse chronological order, and each kline entry is a 5-element array. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with bullet points for use cases, supported products, and exclusions. However, the reverse-chronological detail is repeated twice, and the final 'Agent hint' largely duplicates earlier content, so it is slightly less concise than it could be.

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 covers the return format, data ordering, authentication requirement, supported contract types, and clear alternatives. It is incomplete only in parameter semantics, especially start/end units and interval specifics, which are left to inference despite the lack of schema descriptions.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning or format of start, end, limit, category, or interval parameters. It mentions supported product types and the kline array shape, but that does not compensate for the missing parameter-level guidance in a 6-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Query historical mark price klines used for margin and liquidation calculations in derivative contracts.' It also explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools by naming getMarketKline and getIndexPriceKline as the correct tools for trading and index price candles respectively.

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios (risk management, backtesting, chart comparison, liquidation risk) and explicit when-not-to-use instructions with named alternatives. This leaves no ambiguity about when this endpoint should be selected over its siblings.

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