data_get_pine_boxes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and rises to it: it declares 'SIDE EFFECTS: None (Read-only)' and a capability LIMITATION ('Only reads box primitives generated by active studies'). It omits details like behavior when no boxes exist or deduplication mechanics, but the safety and scope profile is well covered.

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-loads the core purpose, then uses labeled clauses (WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, LIMITATIONS) for scannability. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return value as deduplicated {high, low} price ranges, and covers scope and safety for a 2-param read-only tool. Edge cases (empty results, inactive studies) are not addressed, but the definition is otherwise complete.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema; the description's mention of 'deduplicated' ranges loosely maps to the verbose flag but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Read bounding boxes and zones drawn by Pine Script indicators') and even characterizes the output shape ('deduplicated {high, low} price ranges'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like data_get_pine_lines, data_get_pine_labels, and data_get_pine_tables, which target other primitives.

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 concrete trigger scenarios (order blocks, fair value gaps, consolidation boxes via box.new), which is strong context. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the conditions for use are clear enough that the agent can route correctly.

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