Price candles (OHLCV)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context: the default window, the granularity range supported, and the specific limitation that '1s' intervals only work over roughly the last 30 minutes. It stops short of stating result-size limits or truncation behavior.

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?

Four dense sentences with zero filler; the core purpose and OHLCV payload come first, then defaults, then the time-format grammar. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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?

For a read-only, four-parameter tool with no output schema, this is close to complete: payload shape, default range, interval bounds, and time syntax are all present. The remaining gap is volume — no hint about maximum candles returned or whether long ranges get truncated or paginated.

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?

The schema description for 'since' is only 'Default "24h"' and 'until' is undocumented, so the description carries most of the load by enumerating accepted formats: relative ('30m', '7d'), date, date-time, 'now', or Unix ms. That is a genuine value-add beyond the schema. It does not restate the 'coin' semantics already well documented in the schema, which is appropriate.

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 — 'Price history as candles (open, high, low, close, volume) for any market' — and unpacks the OHLCV acronym, so there is no ambiguity about the return shape. Sibling differentiation is only implicit (contrasting with hydromancer_market_snapshot or hydromancer_market_depth), since no sibling is named, which keeps it at 4.

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?

It states useful defaults ('1h candles for the last 24h') and an important caveat that '1s' covers only about 30 minutes, which implicitly steers the agent toward valid invocations. However, it never says when to choose this over hydromancer_market_snapshot or other price-adjacent siblings, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage inferential.

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