historical_ohlcv

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic function. It does not mention data source, time range handling, default limits, or what the returned data structure looks like, which are important for an agent to anticipate tool behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that is immediately informative and contains no filler. It successfully front-loads the key action and resource, earning the maximum score for conciseness.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the response format, how startTime/endTime/limit interact, or any default behavior, making it incomplete for a tool with five parameters and no structured output metadata.

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 input schema covers all five parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra parameter-level detail, relying entirely on the schema, which gives no information about parameter interactions or typical usage patterns.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('historical OHLCV data') to state what the tool does, making its core purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like market_coingecko_coin_ohlc or dex_get_pool_ohlcv, which also provide OHLCV/candlestick data, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of suitable use cases, exclusions, or comparisons with similar price-history tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and minimal description.

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