read_live_chart

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

Annotations are minimal (title only), so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits, such as what happens if the algorithm is not live or if the chart is empty, nor does it mention rate limits or other constraints.

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?

The description is concise (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it lacks structure and omits key details that would aid an AI agent. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity sacrifices completeness.

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?

Given the complexity (nested parameter, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain prerequisites or behavior, though the output schema covers return values.

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 description contains no information about parameters, despite a schema coverage of 0%. All parameter descriptions are in the schema, but the tool description fails to add any extra meaning or context beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description clearly states the action (read a chart) and the resource (live algorithm). It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_backtest_chart by specifying 'live', but does not explicitly differentiate from other read tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when another chart reading method would be more appropriate. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.

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