data_get_ohlcv

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

The description reveals important behavioral traits: it refuses a window with no loaded bars, defaults to summary=true (compact stats + last 5 bars). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or the full return format, which would be helpful for a data retrieval 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 moderately brief but front-loads the core action and modes. Each sentence adds distinct value: mode explanation, use-case guidance, error handling, and defaults. Subtracting one point for slightly dense structure that could be broken into clearer lists for the two modes.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what the tool does, its two modes, when to use each, default behavior, and a usage pitfall. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly. However, it could mention whether the data is for the active symbol or pass a symbol parameter, and what the 'stats' in summary include.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the modes (from+to vs omit both) and the default for summary, which maps to the parameters. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'summary' beyond contrasting 'compact stats + last 5 bars' vs 'all bars', and could clarify what 'stats' includes. The description also does not compensate for the lack of parameter enum details.

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 'Get OHLCV bar data from the chart', specifying the verb (get), resource (OHLCV bar data), and source (chart). It distinguishes two modes (from+to vs omit both) and explains when each is appropriate, helping differentiate from sibling tools like chart_set_visible_range or chart_get_state.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode: 'pass from+to ... when reviewing a past trade' and 'Omit both for the newest count bars.' It also warns against using the wrong mode: 'because without it you get the newest bars regardless of where the chart is navigated.' Additionally, it advises to call chart_set_visible_range for a window with no loaded bars instead of receiving a refusal.

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