data_export_ohlcv

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing a fail-fast consistency guard: the export aborts if the loaded range or selected market changes mid-pagination, and the file is "confined" (sandboxed). This is meaningful context consistent with idempotentHint=false. It stops short of saying where the file lands or whether prior files are overwritten.

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?

A single dense sentence with the action and the consistency guarantee front-loaded; no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 zero required params, no output schema, and no explanation of the return value (file path? job handle? summary counts?), the definition leaves a real gap. Annotations cover safety, and the failure semantics are covered, but the agent cannot predict what it gets back.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description compensates for format by naming JSON and CSV explicitly, but says nothing about max_bars, which is only bounded (1–1,000,000) in the schema with no explanation of truncation behavior. target_id and expected_layout_id are already documented in 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 concrete verb+resource ("Export all currently loaded bars") and the output shape (JSON or CSV file). It implicitly separates itself from data_get_ohlcv by producing a file rather than returning values, but it never names that sibling or clarifies how the two differ in practice.

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?

Usage is implied by "currently loaded bars" — you must have data loaded first — and the failure condition during pagination hints at large-range exports. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among data_get_ohlcv, strategy_export, or research_export.

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