get_candles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination via 'nextBefore' (exclusive cursor), count max limit of 200, and the adjusted-price flag. These operational details help the agent understand how the tool behaves during repeated calls.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose followed by compact parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or filler, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides all necessary operational context: interval choices, count constraints, pagination contract, and adjusted-price behavior. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains interval ('1m'/'1d'), count (max 200), before (ISO 8601 exclusive cursor, use nextBefore for pagination), and adjusted (수정주가). Only 'symbol' is left undocumented, but it is a standard ticker string that is self-evident.

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 opens with 'Get candlestick chart data' – a specific verb+resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_prices and get_trades by explicitly focusing on candlestick data and providing interval options (1m/1d).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. However, the parameter details and the candlestick focus imply its purpose for charting or historical OHLC data. Usage context is implied but not directly guided.

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