batch_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without revealing side effects (e.g., that it likely changes the chart symbol/timeframe during iteration, as hinted by the restore_start_state parameter) or the sequential execution with delay. These are only visible in parameter descriptions, not in the main tool description.

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, unambiguous sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately concise and contains no fluff, though it omits details that would improve other dimensions.

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 tool with 7 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how iterations behave (delays, state restoration), or any prerequisites. An agent would need to rely heavily on the schema and context 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%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description itself adds no parameter detail; however, the schema already provides rich semantics, including the action enum with a note about get_study_values for universe scans. The description adds no extra value beyond the schema.

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 uses a clear verb ('Run') and resource ('an action across multiple symbols and/or timeframes'), which distinguishes it from the single-symbol/timeframe sibling tools like data_get_ohlcv and data_get_study_values. It does not enumerate the specific actions, but the schema names them, so the purpose is reasonably clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer batch_run over calling the underlying single-action tools repeatedly, nor does it mention any trade-offs, such as rate limiting or the sequential delay. The intended context is only inferred from the name and schema.

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