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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the term 'OHLCV' as an alternative for 'candlestick', which is a minor clarification. It does not contradict the annotations but also does not provide additional behavioral context such as pagination, rate limits, or data ordering. Given the annotations, the bar for additional transparency is lower, and the description meets it with minimal value.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the core action and resource. It is front-loaded with the essential information and contains no superfluous words or repetition. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (a read-only candlestick getter), the description plus schema plus annotations cover the essential aspects. However, there is no mention of the return format (e.g., an array of candlestick objects), and the description does not highlight that this is specifically for spot markets among many sibling candlestick tools. This leaves a minor completeness gap, but it is still adequate for a straightforward data retrieval operation.

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 provides detailed descriptions for all five parameters, including defaults and constraints, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already specifies. Therefore, the description adds no value in this dimension, and the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: retrieving candlestick/OHLCV data for a currency pair. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('currency pair'), which aligns with the tool name. However, it does not explicitly say 'spot' or differentiate from sibling candlestick tools for other product types (e.g., fx, dc, options), so it is clear but not fully distinguishing without the name.

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, such as the many other candlestick endpoints for different product categories. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or references to sibling tools. The name suggests 'spot', but the description itself lacks any contextual or comparative guidance.

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