Get OHLC Data

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden but discloses almost no behavior: nothing about result limits, how far back data goes, pagination, or rate limits. It only restates the data type returned.

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?

A single tight phrase with the core resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but nothing wasted.

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 and no annotations, so the description should explain the shape of the returned candles (OHLC fields, count, ordering) and any limits on how much history is returned. Neither is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so 'pair', 'since', and 'interval' are already documented with examples, defaults, and valid values. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('OHLC/candlestick data for a trading pair') with a clarifying parenthetical ('price history'). It distinguishes itself by resource from siblings like get_order_book, get_ticker, and get_recent_trades, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus get_ticker or get_recent_trades, and no mention of prerequisites or temporal scope. Usage is only implied by the word 'history'.

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