get_marketmaker_chart

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

The description goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by explaining independent array slicing, separate metadata counts, no point alignment, no aggregation/unit conversion, the separation of data fields from wrapper pagination keys, and the lack of real-time guarantees. This gives an agent a strong behavioral model of the tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds meaningful behavioral context without filler. The structure is efficient and easy to process.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides substantial context: raw data nature, slicing behavior, data layout, and real-time caveat. It is not fully complete because it could offer more explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar orderbook or chart tools, but the critical invocation details are 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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for limit/offset by explaining independent slicing and separate metadata counts, but it does not explain time_period semantics or clarify the relationship between order_book_id and the data. The schema already covers order_book_id, so the partial compensation is adequate but incomplete.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get raw OHLC and market-maker data for traded products.' It also explicitly distinguishes this from stock/fund chart tools, making the purpose clear and differentiating it from sibling chart endpoints.

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 clearly indicates when this tool applies—raw data for traded products—and explicitly excludes stock/fund charts. However, it does not name specific sibling alternatives like get_stock_chart or get_fund_chart, nor does it provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond the stock/fund exclusion.

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