get_market_data

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It notes 'live' data but does not disclose potential caching, rate limits, or whether data is real-time vs. delayed. Also lacks mention of return format or side effects (though it is clearly read-only).

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?

Single sentence, no filler, directly states purpose. Front-loaded with key action and object.

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?

Tool has 3 input parameters, all documented. Description covers the type of data (OHLCV candlesticks) but does not specify the exact output structure (e.g., array of candles with fields). With no output schema, a bit more detail on return format would be beneficial, but still fairly complete.

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%. Description adds useful clarifications like 'Must be available on the connected exchange' for pair, and provides common timeframe examples. However, it does not significantly surpass the schema's own descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states fetching live OHLCV candlestick data for a specific pair and timeframe. It uses a specific verb ('fetch') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_balance' or 'get_trade'.

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 context is implied ('fetch live OHLCV market data') but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_trade_history' or 'get_performance'. Missing exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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