validate_candle_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it detects gaps, duplicates, OHLCV consistency, price/volume outliers, computes a 0-100 quality score (A-F), auto-detects liquidity tiers, and adjusts thresholds. It does not mention side effects or rate limits, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 a dense paragraph with relevant information, structured from purpose to details to usage. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the tool's role. It is concise given the complexity, though could be slightly streamlined.

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 covers purpose, checks, score, tier detection, and adjustability. However, with no output schema, it lacks explicit details on the return structure or format of the quality score. This is a notable gap for a validation tool with multiple output components.

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 71% (5/7 parameters described). The description adds context about auto-detected tiers and adjustable thresholds, but does not provide additional per-parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 'OHLCVローソク足データの品質検証' (OHLCV candlestick data quality validation), lists specific checks (completeness, duplicates, consistency, outliers), and distinguishes from sibling analysis/retrieval tools. It uses a specific verb and resource, fulfilling the highest clarity criterion.

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 explicitly says to use this tool before analysis or backtesting to verify data reliability ('分析やバックテスト前に「このデータ信用できる？」を確認するためのツール'). While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name them, it provides clear contextual guidance for when to invoke it.

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