data_get_pine_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the safety profile (SIDE EFFECTS: None, read-only) and a real precondition (requires a study drawing table.new to be attached). It does not describe the return structure beyond 'rows of text', but the core behavioral facts are present.

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 purpose sentence followed by labelled WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, and LIMITATIONS sections. 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?

No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by stating the result is structured rows of text, while covering the precondition and read-only nature. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though the exact shape of the returned rows remains unspecified.

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% and there is a single optional parameter (study_filter) fully documented as a substring match. The description adds no semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 (Read) and resource (table matrices drawn by Pine Script indicators via table.new) and returns them as structured rows of text. The explicit mention of table.new distinguishes it from the sibling drawing readers data_get_pine_lines, data_get_pine_labels, and data_get_pine_boxes.

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 clause gives concrete trigger scenarios (dashboard summaries, session statistics, multi-timeframe matrices). It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it is an alternative to, so it stops short of a 5.

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