Get Candles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, indicating safe, read-only, and predictable behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the 1000-bar API cap, inline returning most recent trading bars with a truncated flag, and outputPath enabling full-history chunking with deduplication and progress. This significantly enhances transparency beyond annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with 'OHLCV candles.' It efficiently covers key aspects without redundancy, earning its place with each sentence.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers core behaviors: inline/full modes, timeframes, bond pricing. It omits the classCode resolution detail, but that is covered in the schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for selection and use.

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 86% (6 of 7 parameters described). The description adds meaning by enumerating valid timeFrame values, explaining the inline vs outputPath behavior, and noting bond price quoting. For example, the timeFrame enum values are listed and the outputPath param's full-history capability is explained, which goes beyond the schema's description.

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 clearly states 'OHLCV candles' and lists supported timeframes, making the tool's purpose explicit. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_quotes or get_recent_trades, though the context of 'candles' versus 'quotes' provides implicit 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?

The description explains two usage modes: inline for up to 1000 bars and with outputPath for full history, guiding when to use each. It also notes bond price quoting. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_quotes.

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