get_klines

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: results are oldest-first, limited to 500, rows are positional, and the 'columns' field names them. This meaningfully helps an agent interpret the response.

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 sentences carry all essential information with no filler. The core purpose and ordering are front-loaded, and the note about positional rows is a valuable, compact addition.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool returns, how results are ordered, and where field names come from, leaving no critical gap for this relatively simple 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents symbol, limit, and interval. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; 'up to 500 per call' restates the limit constraint already present in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: returns historical OHLCV candles for one symbol. It also clarifies ordering (oldest first) and the 500-candle cap, distinguishing it from siblings like get_ticker and get_order_book, which serve different market-data purposes.

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 makes clear this is for historical candle data, giving an agent context for when to choose it over ticker or order book tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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