batch_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it flags STATE_MUTATING, discloses that it navigates chart symbols/timeframes and may write screenshot files, and notes sequential execution with a configurable delay. It omits permission/auth requirements and failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, LIMITATIONS) and zero filler. The action enumerated up front immediately orients the agent.

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 5-param, state-mutating batch tool with no output schema, it covers side effects and sequencing constraints, which is the critical missing piece. It does not describe what the batch returns (e.g., per-symbol results or errors), but the essential invocation context is present.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters with examples and defaults. The description only restates the action list and does not add syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, giving the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (Execute) and resource (sequential analytical action across arrays of symbols/timeframes) and enumerates the three concrete actions. It clearly distinguishes itself from single-target siblings like data_get_ohlcv or capture_screenshot by its cross-asset, multi-timeframe batching scope.

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 explicit 'WHEN TO USE' clause names three concrete scenarios (automated screening, batch chart captures, cross-asset data collection). It does not, however, name when to prefer single-target siblings instead, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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