get_chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'raw series' distinction but does not disclose return ordering, pagination, or any additional side-effect behavior beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, starts with an action verb and resource, and has zero filler words. Every clause earns its place, including the sibling-tool alternative.

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 simple read-only chart fetch, the description plus rich schema and annotations are sufficient. It names the output fields, distinguishes from the computed-indicator sibling, and the schema covers limits/intervals/defaults; no output schema is necessary.

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?

All three parameters in the schema have complete descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already documents symbol, limit, and interval. The description only restates the symbol context and does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema carries.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Get raw OHLCV candles for a symbol,' and lists the exact fields returned. It also names the sibling tool 'get_technicals' for comparison, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 description explicitly provides usage guidance: use get_technicals for computed indicators, and use this tool 'only when you need the raw series.' This clearly separates the two sibling tools' use cases.

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