Aggregate stored trade prints into OHLCV bars at a chosen interval for crypto or US equity market data analysis.
Aggregate stored trade prints into OHLCV bars at a chosen interval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_ns | Yes | ||
| symbol | Yes | ||
| interval | No | 1m | |
| start_ns | Yes | ||
| fill_empty | No | ||
| asset_class | No | Which market answers. Inferred from the symbol's source when omitted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read over stored prints but says nothing about what happens with empty buckets (the fill_empty flag is never explained), whether the operation is expensive over long ranges, or what the output looks like.
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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. Sizing is appropriate for the sentence as written, though it is sparse rather than efficient given the tool's complexity.
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?
Six parameters, 17% schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema — the description does not fill any of those gaps. For a tool whose correctness hinges on time-bound and empty-bucket semantics, this is insufficient.
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 17%, so the description must compensate, but it only covers 'interval'. The required start_ns/end_ns (nanosecond semantics, inclusive/exclusive bounds) and fill_empty behavior go entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.
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 specific verb (aggregate) and resource (stored trade prints) producing OHLCV bars at a chosen interval. An agent can tell this is a bar-construction tool, though it never names the sibling it competes with (e.g. query_market_data or indicators) to sharpen the distinction.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives among the many sibling query/indicator tools. The agent must infer that this is for OHLCV construction rather than raw retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.