chart_get_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get', which is a behavioral disclosure, but it does not mention potential errors (e.g., no chart open), performance characteristics, or side effects. For a zero-parameter getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element (resource and fields) earns its place, making it highly efficient and scannable.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the key return values at a high level. However, it does not state whether the chart must be open or whether indicator details include settings/how they are returned, leaving minor ambiguity for invocation contexts.

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 tool has zero parameters, so no parameter syntax is needed. The description adds value by conceptually defining what the returned state includes (symbol, timeframe, chart type, indicators), which helps the agent interpret results even without an output 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current chart state') and enumerates the returned fields (symbol, timeframe, chart type, indicators). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling setter tools like chart_set_symbol and chart_set_timeframe, and from the more specific chart_get_visible_range.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a read operation, but does not differentiate from other getter tools such as tv_ui_state or chart_get_visible_range, nor does it give context like 'use when you need current chart settings before modifying them'.

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