chart_get_multi_timeframe

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 declares read-only behavior ('safely preserves original chart state'), atomicity ('without race conditions'), and the state-restoration limitation. It omits permission requirements and any latency/rate considerations, but the safety profile is genuinely better disclosed than most.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then segmented into WHEN TO USE / SIDE EFFECTS / LIMITATIONS labels that make scanning fast. Every sentence earns its place; only slight redundancy between the opening sentence and the LIMITATIONS line.

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 read-only, zero-required-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, safety, and the state-mutation caveat. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only the return shape and behavior on invalid timeframes are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (count, symbol, timeframes) are already documented with defaults in the schema. The description only echoes the timeframe list and implied bar counts, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('atomic sequential multi-timeframe scan across multiple resolutions') plus concrete resolution examples. It reads clearly as the multi-timeframe OHLCV fetcher, which differentiates it from single-timeframe siblings like data_get_ohlcv, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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?

An explicit 'WHEN TO USE' clause gives a clear triggering condition: needing raw OHLCV bars across several timeframes in one coordinated operation. It lacks a when-not clause or a named alternative, so the agent must infer when a single-timeframe fetch is preferable.

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