ohlcv

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits — result ordering (oldest-first) and upstream routing (Alpaca SIP / Alpaca-crypto / Coinbase) — but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, symbol-not-found error behavior, or what happens when limit exceeds the max of 300.

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 first clause is duplicated verbatim ('OHLCV candles (oldest-first) for crypto or stocks' twice), which is pure waste. The example call is genuinely useful and the routing sentence is short, but the repetition undercuts an otherwise tight definition.

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 characterize the return payload, yet it never enumerates the candle fields (open/high/low/close/volume/timestamp) or the response envelope. Ordering is covered; shape and error cases are not.

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 symbol, timeframe, limit, and class are already fully documented with defaults and ranges. The example URL reinforces format but adds no semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (OHLCV candles) and a distinguishing attribute (oldest-first, crypto or stocks), which is more than the name alone conveys. However it does not differentiate from the sibling `price` tool, which likely returns a current quote, leaving overlap unaddressed.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus `price`, `orderbook`, or `volatility` — all close siblings in the same market-data family. The mention of routing to Alpaca/Coinbase is implementation detail, not a use-condition.

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