get_candles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination semantics via the 'before' cursor and 'nextBefore' from a prior response, explains the adjusted-price flag, and notes the single-symbol limitation. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or invalid-symbol behavior, but these are minor for a read-only data fetch.

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 one-sentence summary is front-loaded and precise. The Args list is organized and non-redundant, with each parameter explanation adding necessary detail. The Korean translation is a minor redundancy but does not detract.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no description. The definition covers every parameter's constraints and defaults, provides examples, and explains the pagination flow, making the tool callable without external docs. It omits explicit auth or rate-limit context, but for a data-retrieval tool this is not critical.

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%, but the Args section thoroughly documents all five parameters: accepted interval values ('1m', '1d'), count range (1-200), cursor semantics, symbol format examples, and the adjusted flag. This fully compensates for the uninformative 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?

The opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Get OHLCV candle-chart data for a single symbol.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_current_price or get_recent_trades, and the single-symbol constraint is explicit.

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 provides clear context for the tool's purpose and includes constraints like only one symbol per call and cursor-based pagination, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The usage context is 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.