PCM

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or the format/structure of the returned data. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly states the tool's function ('Get OHLCV candlestick data for a trading pair') in a clear and structured manner, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of financial data retrieval and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or error handling, nor does it describe the return format (e.g., array of candlesticks with OHLCV fields). For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (exchange, symbol, timeframe, limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that parameters are needed for OHLCV data retrieval. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('OHLCV candlestick data for a trading pair'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies the type of financial data (OHLCV candlesticks) and the target (trading pair), which distinguishes it from other data retrieval tools like get-ticker or get-orderbook. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., get-trades also retrieves trading data).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when OHLCV data is needed compared to other market data tools like get-ticker (real-time prices) or get-trades (individual transactions), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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