get_candles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it states the tool is public and requires no credentials, discloses the deprecation status, and clarifies the timeframe default. It does not mention return shape or any limits, but the auth and lifecycle context is a meaningful addition.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, and the deprecation warning — the most consequential fact — is front-loaded first.

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 deprecated read-only market-data tool with no output schema, the description covers auth requirements, scope, timeframe options, and the replacement path. Only the return shape is unstated, which is a minor gap given the tool is being retired in favor of `fetch_ohlcv`.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum and the 1m default. The description restates the enum values and default rather than adding format or syntax 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 for one market') and immediately names the replacement sibling `fetch_ohlcv`, so an agent can distinguish it from the many other market-data tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly marks the tool as deprecated and directs the agent to `fetch_ohlcv` instead, which is the strongest possible when/when-not guidance: it tells the agent which sibling to prefer.

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