get_ohlcv

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations lack: rows come oldest-first, are capped at ~300 per call, and truncation is signalled via a 'truncated' field.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the resource identified first and the size/truncation caveat second. Every clause carries actionable information.

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?

With an output schema present and safety annotations supplied, the description need only cover ordering, row cap and truncation — which it does. The remaining gap is that it doesn't say how to retrieve rows beyond the ~300 limit (e.g. by paging with start_date/end_date).

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 all five parameters including defaults and date formats are already documented in the schema. The description only loosely reinforces the date-range behavior via 'oldest first', adding no syntax beyond the schema, so the 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 (historical OHLCV candles) and the ordering, which an agent can distinguish from the quote tool in the sibling list. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the word 'historical' rather than stated.

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 no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Nothing tells the agent to prefer get_ohlcv over get_quote, or to fall back to another tool when more than ~300 rows are needed.

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