Candles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the returned summary stats (change, range, close-to-close volatility, volume), which the annotations alone do not convey. It omits any pagination/limit caveats, keeping it shy of a 5.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by a concrete use case. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the summary stats returned, and the schema covers key params. Interval and price_type semantics are the only meaningful gap, so it is nearly complete for a read-only data tool.

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 60% and documents symbol, limit, and include_candles well. The description largely restates the stats output and adds no meaning for the undocumented interval and price_type enum parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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 (OHLCV candles for a market) plus what else is returned (summary stats: change, range, volatility, volume). Clear enough to distinguish from siblings like strike_get_orderbook or strike_get_recent_trades, though it does not explicitly name that distinction.

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 a concrete usage example ('how has ADA moved this week') that anchors the tool to trend questions. It does not mention when to prefer strike_market_snapshot or other alternatives, so exclusions are absent.

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