edgex_get_kline

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 explaining behavior. It merely states 'Get candlestick/kline data' without disclosing return format, default parameters, pagination, or any side effects. It does not describe what OHLCV data looks like or whether historical data is available, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.

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 concise sentence, front-loads the core action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool.

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 no output schema, so the description should explain what the returned data represents, but it only says 'candlestick/kline data.' It also does not clarify when to use this tool versus siblings like get_ticker or get_depth, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's role in the broader toolkit.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters with clear explanations (symbol example, interval enum, count bounds and default). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 identifies the tool as one that retrieves candlestick/kline data, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ticker or get_depth. The phrase 'for technical analysis' adds context, but it does not explicitly differentiate from other market data tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only usage hint is 'for technical analysis,' which implies when the tool might be used but provides no explicit guidance on choosing it over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no examples. There is no mention of when not to use this tool or how it compares to siblings like get_ticker or get_depth.

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