ohlcv

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses ordering (oldest-first) and routing destinations, but fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This is minimal for a data retrieval tool.

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 short but contains a repetition ('OHLCV candles (oldest-first) for crypto or stocks' appears twice with a dash). The example line is useful. Some editing would improve conciseness.

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?

Given no output schema and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format (e.g., fields like open, high, low, close, volume), pagination, or typical use cases. The agent would lack crucial context for correct invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema; it only provides an example query. The schema already explains all parameters adequately.

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 it returns OHLCV candles for crypto or stocks, with oldest-first ordering. It identifies the resource and verb, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'price' or 'atr', though context implies it's for historical candle data.

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 mentions routing to Alpaca SIP, Alpaca-crypto, and Coinbase, implying coverage for multiple asset classes, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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