chart_set_visible_range

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Pages in older history as needed, so this also serves as jump-to-date.' This is valuable. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the chart range is permanently changed), error handling for invalid ranges, or any required state (e.g., chart must be loaded). The disclosure is partial but non-trivial.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and wastes no words. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds a practical use case and behavioral insight. Every sentence 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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context: purpose, input format, a key behavior (paging), and a use case. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., chart must be active) or return values, but those are not critical given the tool's nature. The description is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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% — both parameters already have clear descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'unix seconds'). The tool description only repeats the unit and adds a behavioral note about paging history, which does not add semantic meaning to the parameters themselves. The description does not improve upon the schema's parameter documentation.

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 tool's primary action: 'Zoom the chart to a specific date range (unix timestamps in seconds).' It also provides a concrete use case (reviewing a past trade). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like chart_set_timeframe, the verb 'zoom' and the focus on a date range make its purpose distinct enough.

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 implies usage by giving an example: 'pass a window around the trade time' for reviewing trades. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., chart_set_timeframe for setting intervals) or when not to use it. The context is implied but not formalized.

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