get_kline

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 only mentions data retrieval and an optional verification feature, lacking details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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 core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a specific feature without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly naming key parameters or use cases, but overall it's efficient with zero waste.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like pagination or data freshness, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively in this financial context.

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 adds minimal semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It hints at the purpose of 'reference ID for data verification,' loosely related to the includeReferenceId parameter, but doesn't elaborate on its use or other parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 tool's purpose as 'Get kline/candlestick data for a trading pair,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_ticker or get_trades, which might also provide market data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions an optional feature (reference ID for verification) but doesn't clarify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to siblings such as get_ticker or get_orderbook, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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