get_candles

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. However, it merely restates schema constraints (interval enum and max 200) without adding unique behavioral context such as ordering, pagination, or default adjusted setting. No additional side effects are mentioned.

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 consists of two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding brief interval/count details. Every word is informative with no redundancy.

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 description is adequate for a simple read tool but omits return format and ordering details. Since no output schema exists, it would benefit from stating that the response is an array of candles and how pagination works via the 'before' parameter.

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 already provides comprehensive descriptions for all 5 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema documents, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 retrieves OHLCV candle data for a given symbol, using a specific verb ('조회합니다') and resource. It also specifies supported intervals (1m/1d) and return limit, distinguishing it from sibling technical indicator tools.

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 establishes the use case—retrieving historical candle data—but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_prices or get_orderbook. It implies usage context but lacks exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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