getTokenOHLCV

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: a hard plan requirement with the exact env vars to set, the precise failure mode (403 with code DP403_PLAN_REQUIRED and no keyless/free window), and a Dev-plan 30-day history cap. It also notes there is no 'inversed' parameter, pre-empting a plausible wrong assumption.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, aggregation semantics, and plan requirement before the fallback and parameter detail, so the critical information lands first. It is long and the trailing parameter recitation partially repeats the 100%-covered schema, which costs it a point, but nearly every sentence carries actionable content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still frames the return shape ('time-series array'). For a gated, read-only analytics endpoint it covers auth, plan limits, failure handling, fallback, and the aggregation caveat that could otherwise cause misinterpretation of the data.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it flags start as easiest as a relative offset like '-24h' (avoiding the need to know today's date), enumerates the interval enum and its default, states limit default/max, and discloses the Dev-plan 30-day history limit that constrains what start/end can meaningfully request. The only weakness is that much of the param text duplicates the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Get historical USD OHLCV candles for one token over a time range') and immediately disambiguates scope by explaining that price/volume are aggregated across every pool the token trades in, not a single pair. It also names the siblings it is not (getPoolOHLCV for a single pair, getTokenDetails for current price), so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers ('price history of this token', 'USD chart for this token'), names the two alternatives and the conditions that select them, and supplies a concrete fallback path on failure (getPoolOHLCV on the main pool found via getTokenPools sorted by volume). Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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