get_outcome_candles

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is clear, but it doesn't disclose additional details like return format, pagination, or network defaults. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core function and a use case. No superfluous words or repetition of schema details.

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?

No output schema, but the description indicates the tool returns OHLCV candle data, which is sufficient for a charting use case. The schema covers required parameters. Not fully complete for explaining the result structure, but adequate for a straightforward data retrieval 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 67%, with key params like outcomeId, startTime, endTime, and interval described. The description adds no parameter-level detail, relying on the schema. The 'side' and 'network' params lack descriptions, but the enum values provide partial context. Adequate but not compensating for the gaps.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves OHLCV candle data for an outcome side, distinguishing it from siblings like get_outcome_prices which likely returns spot prices. The verb 'get' and specific resource 'OHLCV candle data' make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly mentions 'Useful for charting price history', providing a clear context for when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the charting context is enough to differentiate from other outcome data tools.

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