data_get_study_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read-only 'get' operation, which is helpful, but it does not mention return format, potential empty results, or side effects. It adds some context ('current', 'visible', 'data window') but not deep behavioral detail.

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 that clearly states the action and scope. It includes useful examples in parentheses without being verbose. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple, zero-parameter getter, the description covers the main purpose but lacks return value details. Since there is no output schema, the description should ideally explain the shape or type of 'indicator values' returned. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent that needs to know how to consume the result.

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 baseline for 0 params is 4. There is no parameter documentation needed, and the description correctly focuses on the output behavior rather than input 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource ('current indicator values from the data window') and scope ('all visible studies'). It also lists examples (RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands, EMAs) and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'all visible studies' versus single-indicator tools.

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: use this when you need values for all visible studies. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like data_get_indicator, nor does it provide exclusions. The context is clear but not reinforced with alternative guidance.

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