Historical Candlesticks by Offset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so behavioral safety is well-covered. The description adds the period list but does not add new behavioral context such as rate limits, data staleness, or what happens on invalid offset. It neither contradicts nor significantly extends 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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the key action and resource. The period list is useful but the description could be slightly more structured. It earns its space with no filler, but it is minimal.

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 7 parameters (6 required) and no output schema, the description lacks critical context: it does not explain how 'offset' works, how the reference time interacts with 'forward' parameter, or what the returned candlestick format looks like. The tool is moderately complex, and the description does not adequately compensate for missing output schema.

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 100%, meaning each parameter already has a description. The description only repeats the period choices and does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as how to construct the reference time or what 'offset' implies numerically. Baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('historical candlestick data by offset from a reference time'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'history_candlesticks_by_date' by specifying the offset mechanism, and it lists valid period values, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies use when you need data relative to a reference time, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'history_candlesticks_by_date' or 'candlesticks'. No guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it is provided.

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