hl_get_candles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or side effects. The only behavioral hint is the default parameters.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, then a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the action. However, the parameter list could be integrated into prose to be even leaner, but it is not excessively verbose.

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 simple data retrieval tool with an output schema (context signal), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basics of what the tool returns and required inputs, but lacks optional context like error handling or assurance of uniqueness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear examples for coin (e.g., BTC, ETH, SOL), enumerates valid intervals with default, and explains limit as number of candles. This adds meaning beyond raw schema types and defaults.

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 explicitly states it gets OHLCV candles for a specific asset, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('OHLCV candles'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like order management tools, as candles are a data-retrieval function.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., hl_get_all_mids, hl_get_orderbook). The description only specifies what it does, not when it is appropriate or when to avoid it.

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