hl_candles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only offers a hint about interval format, but does not mention what data is returned, any limits, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for a data-fetching tool.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the core concept. It wastes no words and is easy to parse. However, the structure is somewhat fragmentary ('OHLCV candles: interval like...') and could be more complete, but for conciseness it is efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not state whether this is a historical data endpoint, how many candles are returned, whether both time bounds are inclusive, or any constraints. For a tool with four parameters, the description provides insufficient context.

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 provides no descriptions for any parameter, and the description only adds meaning for 'interval' by giving examples like 1m, 1h, 1d. It does not clarify the role of coin, start_time_ms, or end_time_ms. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more but only marginally does.

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 resource (OHLCV candles) and provides an interval format example, which makes the tool's purpose recognizable as a market data retrieval for candlestick data. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', so it does not fully specify the action. It distinguishes from siblings by naming a specific data type, though not as strongly as a fully explicit phrase.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hl_l2_book or hl_funding_history. There is no mention of suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left with no explicit direction beyond inferring from the tool name and siblings.

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