fetch_ohlcv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key trait — it is a public, credential-free read — plus the default timeframe. It omits other relevant behavior: ordering of returned candles, how limit interacts with defaults, and whether older candles are truncated or rejected.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the scoping constraint front-loaded ahead of the auth note and default timeframe.

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 no annotations, the description must carry more weight, yet it says nothing about the shape of a candle record or pagination behavior. It covers market scope, auth, and timeframe adequately but is thin for a data-fetch tool with an opaque return value.

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%, so the schema already documents market_id, limit (max 1000) and the timeframe enum plus its default. The description only restates the timeframe options and default without adding format, syntax, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Get OHLCV candles") and narrows scope to "one market", so the agent knows it is a single-market candle fetch. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling get_candles, leaving the agent to guess which one to pick.

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?

"Public — no credentials needed" tells the agent this is usable without auth, which is real usage context, but there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative tools (get_candles, get_trades, fetch_trades) that overlap in scope.

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