token_get_ohlcv_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-like operation (build chart markdown) but does not disclose behavioral details such as authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. Adding that the chart is embeddable is helpful but not exhaustive.

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, directly front-loading the purpose and key details. Every word adds value, and there is 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 8 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should provide more context. It does not explain the meaning of parameters like mint, timeTo, includeActive, or how the markdown output is structured for rendering. This leaves agents underspecified.

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 only 38%, leaving many parameters (e.g., mint, timeTo, includeActive) without descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level clarification beyond mentioning chart types. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 tool builds embeddable chart markdown from token OHLCV candles for inline chat rendering. It includes a hint about prerequisite (resolve ticker with token_search first) and lists supported chart types, distinguishing it from siblings like token_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 description provides explicit context: agents should resolve the ticker with token_search first. It implies that for raw OHLCV data, use token_get_ohlcv, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative statements.

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