chart_get_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety burden and does so well: it declares SIDE EFFECTS: None (Read-only) and a LIMITATIONS constraint (requires an active chart window), which is valuable behavioral context. It stops short of describing return shape or failure behavior, keeping it from 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?

Front-loaded one-sentence payload summary followed by clearly labeled WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, and LIMITATIONS blocks. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, invocation timing, safety profile, and the precondition (active chart window). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema cannot be a source of confusion and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately spends no space on parameter semantics.

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 ('Get') and resource ('current chart state') and enumerates the returned payload: active symbol, timeframe resolution, chart rendering type, and attached indicator study entities with IDs. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like chart_get_visible_range or data_get_ohlcv.

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 WHEN TO USE block gives explicit context (inspecting chart configuration) and names the exact follow-up tools it feeds (chart_manage_indicator, indicator_set_inputs), which is precisely the prerequisite routing an agent needs.

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