geckoterminal_pool_ohlcv

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action without revealing any behavioral traits such as response format, pagination, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves the agent without important context about what the tool actually returns or how it behaves at runtime.

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 description is a single sentence that immediately states the core function and then adds a brief use case. It is extremely concise, front-loaded, and contains zero filler, earning the maximum score for efficiency.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, creating a need for a more comprehensive description. The description only captures the basic function and one use case, but leaves out critical context such as return structure, supported networks, or how the OHLCV data is formatted. Given the complexity, the description 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with every parameter having a semantic description (e.g., 'Number of candles (max 1000)', 'Which token to get OHLCV for'). The tool description itself adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning 'pool', but since the schema already explains all parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get OHLCV (candlestick) data for a pool', which specifies the verb and resource. It adds a use case ('essential for charting and technical analysis'), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'dex_get_pool_ohlcv', which likely serves a similar function.

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 implies when to use the tool by mentioning 'charting and technical analysis', providing a clear context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternative OHLCV tools (e.g., dex_get_pool_ohlcv, historical_ohlcv), so no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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