Candles (OHLCV)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the exact return row format ([open_time, open, high, low, close, volume]) and the 200-count cap. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or pagination, but it is a meaningful addition.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero waste. The return format and window guidance are front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only OHLCV tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough. It explains the output row shape (critical since no output schema exists) and the count cap, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters in detail. The description mentions from/to and the 200 cap, but adds no syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('OHLCV candles for one market') and the exact row shape, making it clear this tool returns candle data rather than trades, ticker, or orderbook. However, it does not explicitly name or distinguish against any sibling tool, so it falls short of the top score.

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 parameter-level guidance ('Use from/to (ISO 8601) to pick a window; the count is capped at 200'), but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like get_recent_trades or get_ticker. No context or exclusions are provided.

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