Price Candles

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description still adds valuable context the annotations cannot: the row layout, oldest-first ordering, price denomination, and an exchange-specific failure mode (Nobitex refuses USDT/IRT). Pagination, rate limits and error shape are unaddressed, keeping it at 4.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return shape, then the exchange caveat. No filler and nothing repeated that is already redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by specifying the candle row format and ordering, which is essential for interpretation. It is missing only secondary information such as error behavior for invalid coin/exchange combinations or rate limits.

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% and the enum/defaults are fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description's mention of Toman/USDT pricing and the 'USDT = Tether in Toman' nuance largely restates what the schema already says for coin and quote.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get recent OHLC candles of one coin') plus scope constraints (two named exchanges, oldest-first ordering). The resource is clearly distinct from sibling tools like ic_get_ticker, ic_get_orderbook and ic_recent_trades, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete selection rule: Nobitex refuses USDT/IRT candles, so use Wallex for those. That is real when-to-use guidance, but there are no explicit exclusions against the sibling tools (e.g. when to prefer ic_get_ticker or ic_recent_trades instead).

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