xRocket candles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to re-establish safety. It adds 'public' access context and emphasizes exactness of the time window, but it does not disclose further behavior such as maximum ranges, pagination, or empty-window handling.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. The core resource ('OHLCV candles') comes first, the time-window qualifier follows immediately, and every phrase contributes to invocation decisions.

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?

For a read-only market-data tool with a full output schema and only four required parameters, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what data to expect and how the time bound is expressed. Minor gaps like explicit start/end exclusivity semantics keep it from a 5.

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 only 25% (symbol is described) while startAt/endAt are given as date-time patterns but no prose. The description adds some value by framing startAt/endAt as an 'exact ISO-8601 time window', but it does not explicitly compensate for the lack of guidance on 'type' or symbol semantics beyond what the schema already supplies.

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'), the resource ('public OHLCV candles'), and the key qualifier ('exact ISO-8601 time window'). The term 'OHLCV candles' distinguishes this from sibling tools like tickers, trades, snapshot, and orderbook without needing to inspect schemas.

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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when an agent needs candle data in a specific ISO-8601 time range. It does not explicitly list exclusions or name a sibling alternative like 'use xrocket_market_tickers instead', so it stops short of a 5.

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