binance_get_ui_klines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the endpoint, API weight (2), the display-smoothing/adjustment behavior, the return shape, the 100-row markdown cap, and the error-handling parity with binance_get_klines. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured with clear headers: purpose, when to use, when not to use, returns, examples, and error handling. Every section earns its place and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. The most important distinguishing information is front-loaded.

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 read-only data-fetching tool, the description is complete: it explains what the data is, when to prefer it over the sibling, what the response looks like, and that error behavior matches a known sibling. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the output schema covers return details. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 description does not individually document parameters, but it references the same parameters and array shape as binance_get_klines and provides a concrete example. The input schema's nested definitions already describe each field in detail, so this is adequate but not exceptional. An agent primarily relies on the schema plus the sibling reference, making this dimension merely sufficient.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch presentation-adjusted candlestick data, matching Binance's own chart UI.' It names the exact API endpoint and explicitly contrasts itself with binance_get_klines, making the distinction from sibling tools unambiguous. An agent can immediately tell this is the UI-matching kline tool, not the raw candles tool.

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 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections provide explicit, decision-ready guidance. It states to use this tool when numbers must match what users see on binance.com/app charts, and to use binance_get_klines for raw exchange candles used in calculations. This is exactly the kind of direct alternative routing that helps an agent select correctly.

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