Retrieve normalized historical OHLCV candles for a symbol and session window, including source timestamps and gap warnings for accurate backtesting research.
Retrieve normalized historical OHLCV candles from tastytrade DXLink for an exact UTC and session window, with source timestamps and explicit gap warnings. No resampling is performed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses normalization, source timestamps, explicit gap warnings, and absence of resampling, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but the disclosed traits are substantive.
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 a single, tightly packed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds only high-value caveats: source timestamps, gap warnings, and no resampling.
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?
The description is viable but not fully complete for a tool with a nested request schema, many parameters, and no output schema. It mentions return-related characteristics like source timestamps and gap warnings, but omits output structure, pagination, error behavior, and session timezone semantics.
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 for parameter semantics, but it only hints at 'exact UTC' and 'session window.' It does not explain interval units, instrument_type values, timeout_ms, max_candles, or session object details, leaving much of the parameter meaning to inference.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve normalized historical OHLCV candles from tastytrade DXLink.' It further distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing exact UTC/session windows, source timestamps, gap warnings, and no resampling, making its role unambiguous.
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?
The description gives clear context on when to use this tool: when an exact UTC and session window is needed, with normalized candles, source timestamps, and gap warnings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is strong enough to guide selection among the backtest/simulation siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.