get_candles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful traits beyond the schema: only one symbol per call, count limits (1-200), default to most recent candles, pagination via 'nextBefore' cursor, and adjustment behavior for splits/dividends. It omits error/rate-limit behavior, but the core operation is well-specified.

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 tightly structured docstring: one purpose sentence followed by an Args list. Each parameter gets exactly the needed detail with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. The parenthetical Korean translation adds negligible noise but does not hurt.

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 output schema covers return values, the description is nearly complete: all parameters, valid values, pagination, and single-symbol constraint are present. The only notable gap is lack of explicit routing guidance against sibling market-data tools, which is a minor omission for a well-scoped getter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all five parameters with concrete examples (e.g., '005930' vs 'AAPL'), valid interval values, count range, pagination semantics, and the adjusted flag. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 'Get OHLCV candle-chart data for a single symbol', a specific verb+resource that clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_recent_trades or get_current_price. The single-symbol constraint and parameter scope further pin down its exact role.

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 context is clear: this is for single-symbol OHLCV data with pagination. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over sibling market-data tools or when not to use it, so usage guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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