get_historical_candles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the source endpoint ('the history endpoint') and gives no information about side effects, return format, default behavior, pagination, or prerequisites. The agent must infer most behavioral traits from the schema and tool name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It loses one point for minor redundancy: 'historical' in the name is echoed in the description, and 'history endpoint' overlaps with the tool's purpose.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and a large set of overlapping siblings (get_candles, get_history, get_history_date_range), a one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, default parameter behaviors, when board is required, or how this tool differs from nearby alternatives.

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%, with all 7 parameters documented (from, till, board, engine, market, interval, security). The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('historical OHLCV candles over a date range') and the source ('the history endpoint'). It is clear on what the tool does, but it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like get_candles or get_history_date_range, which may also return candle/time-series 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 intended usage is implicitly conveyed by 'historical' and 'date range' — this tool is for historical candle data over a time period. However, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions such as board requirements.

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