get_tokens_hourly_ohlcv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions data fetching but lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. For an API tool with 7 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information (fetch, hourly OHLCV, tokens, date range, API source). Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

For a data-fetching tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, pagination behavior, error cases) and output details, which are crucial for effective tool use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'date or date range' and 'token(s)', but does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Fetch'), resource ('hourly OHLCV data for token(s)'), and scope ('from Token Metrics API'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_tokens_daily_ohlcv (daily vs. hourly) and get_tokens_price (price only vs. full OHLCV). It precisely communicates what the tool does.

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 implies usage for retrieving historical hourly OHLCV data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_tokens_daily_ohlcv (for daily data) or get_tokens_price (for current prices). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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