chart_get_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 the core behavior (retrieving date and bars ranges) and implies a read-only operation through the verb 'Get.' However, it omits specifics such as whether unix timestamps are in seconds or milliseconds, whether the bars range is inclusive, and whether the returned values are in a particular format. These gaps limit the agent's ability to anticipate the exact output.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must fully explain what the agent can expect. It states the two key pieces of data (date range and bars range) but does not describe the return structure, such as whether it is an object with specific field names. This ambiguity could lead to incorrect assumptions about the response format, making it only minimally complete.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings since none exist. The baseline of 4 is appropriate here because there is no parameter information to add 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 'Get' and specifies the resource as 'visible date range (unix timestamps) and bars range on the chart.' This clearly conveys the tool's function as a getter for chart visible range data. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like chart_set_visible_range (which sets) and chart_scroll_to_date (which scrolls), though it does not explicitly name them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, with no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not mention that this tool is useful for capturing the current view before making changes or that it should be used instead of chart_get_state for range-specific queries.

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