get_candles

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 states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a data retrieval tool with no structured safety hints.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a financial data tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits. With no annotations to compensate, this leaves critical gaps for effective tool use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters (symbolId, startTime, endTime, interval). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these parameters are used for historical data retrieval. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('historical candle data for a symbol'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_quotes' or 'get_symbol', which might also retrieve financial data, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_quotes' or 'get_symbol'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid symbol ID, or exclusions, such as not being suitable for real-time data. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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