Historique OHLCV

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries real extra weight: it discloses the hard bar cap (QUANTOWER_MAX_BARS, currently 500) and that reads are not cached, which affects call strategy. It stops short of describing response shape or pagination 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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the cap, then the caching/perf caveat. No filler, though the timeframe enumeration partly duplicates the schema enum and could be trimmed.

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?

With no output schema and six parameters, the description does cover the operation's constraints and read-only nature adequately for an agent to call it correctly. It could go further by sketching the returned bar structure (OHLCV field layout, ordering) since no output schema exists.

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% and every parameter (symbolId, timeframe, from, to, limit, connectionId) is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the timeframe list and the limit cap rather than adding format or interaction details beyond 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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Renvoie les bougies OHLCV d'un instrument') and enumerates the supported timeframes, which immediately separates it from siblings such as quantower_get_quote, quantower_get_dom and quantower_get_trades. An agent can identify the tool's output domain without opening the schema.

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 the use case (historical candle retrieval) and gives a tuning hint ('réduisez limit pour les gros historiques'), but never states when to choose this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferred rather than spelled out.

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