crypto_spread_candles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the data source (cross-venue CEX-DEX) and output shape (OHLC candles), which is useful context, but it omits any mention of read-only safety, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The core resource and scope appear immediately, and every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple fetch tool with fully documented parameters, the description is adequate. However, with no output schema it should say more about the return values (e.g., candle granularity, aggregation across venues, timestamp alignment) to be fully self-contained.

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% and all four parameters are individually documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the token-pair scoping, repeating what the schema already states, and provides no additional semantics for date, time, or interval.

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 (Fetch) and a precisely defined resource (cross-venue CEX-DEX spread candles in OHLC format) scoped to a token pair. It is clear enough that an agent knows what it returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like dex_price_summary or crypto_dislocations.

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 never states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, time-range limitations, or when-not to call it. Usage can be inferred from the purpose, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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