portal_hyperliquid_get_ohlc

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool is read-only (builds from fills) and mentions pagination via cursor, but does not explicitly state it is side-effect-free, auth needs, or rate limits. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Well-structured with sections (COMMON USER ASKS, WHEN TO USE, DON'T USE, EXAMPLES). Mostly concise, though COMMON USER ASKS is very brief and the example is partially redundant with schema. No wasted sentences.

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?

Lacks output schema, so return format is not described (only 'chart-ready'). With 6 parameters and no output details, the description is functional but could be more complete for a data-fetching tool.

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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra value beyond schema (e.g., example default duration, auto interval mapping). 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 states the verb 'Build chart-ready' and resource 'Hyperliquid trade OHLC candles', and distinguishes from sibling tools like portal_hyperliquid_get_analytics and portal_hyperliquid_query_fills by specifying candles.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE and DON'T USE sections provide clear context: use for candles for one coin, need chart-ready data; avoid for scalar time-series buckets or raw fills. However, it does not name specific sibling alternatives, slightly reducing clarity.

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