get_candles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds critical details: time format ('Unix epoch in seconds, UTC midnight for daily'), default range (6mo), max range (20 years), and return structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence adds value. The description is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage guidance, parameter clarifications, and return format. No redundant or vague statements.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and a data-rich tool, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter constraints, and return shape comprehensively. Siblings are distinct, so no confusion.

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 has 100% coverage for all 3 parameters. Description adds extra context: default and max range for 'range', and explains the time format in the return data, which complements understanding of parameters. Slightly above baseline because of added constraints.

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 explicitly states 'Return OHLCV price candles for a single stock' with a clear verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stock_info or get_chart_patterns by focusing on price history.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use when you need price history to compute indicators or answer how much is X up this month.' Also advises on range selection ('Default range is 6mo', 'Use larger ranges like 1y or 2y only when the user explicitly asks for long history'). Lacks direct exclusion of alternatives but clear enough.

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