chart_set_timeframe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutating action ('Change') but does not mention potential side effects, idempotency, or whether the chart must be loaded or active. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action, efficient, and easily parsed. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity, so it does not earn a 5.

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 is simple with one well-documented parameter, so the minimal description is somewhat adequate. However, there are no annotations and no output schema, and the description does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., chart must be open) or confirm the absence of return values. For a mutating tool in a large sibling set, this is a moderate gap.

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 input schema already covers the single parameter 'timeframe' with examples (1, 5, 15, 60, D, W, M), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Change the chart timeframe/resolution'. It uses a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('chart'), and the object (timeframe/resolution) distinguishes it from sibling tools like chart_set_symbol or chart_set_type. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 (when you want to alter the chart's timeframe), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It is minimally adequate but lacks clear context for when to invoke it among related chart tools.

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