get_exchange_ohlcv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that not every exchange supports every timeframe, and typical limit caps (500-1500 candles). It also describes the return format. However, it omits rate limits or potential cost of the call.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage guidance, then parameter descriptions, and finally return format. Every sentence is informative, and the structure is logical and efficient.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description thoroughly covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and return format. It provides sufficient information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter in detail: exchange_id as CCXT exchange ID, symbol as unified format, timeframe with common safe choices, limit with typical caps, and since_ms behavior when null. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 retrieves OHLCV candlestick data from a specific exchange, noting high granularity including 1-minute candles. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `get_aggregated_ohlc` by specifying its use for a single venue and sub-hour timeframes.

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 lists conditions for preferring this tool over `get_aggregated_ohlc`: when the user asks about a specific venue, needs sub-hour candles, or requires exact volume on one exchange. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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