nt_chart_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavior disclosure. It adds the useful constraint 'Local mode only' and lists the state components, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (though 'Get' implies it) or describe error handling (e.g., invalid chart ID, no charts available). It covers some behavioral context but not comprehensively.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action first. The additional details (state components, prerequisite, local mode constraint) are all relevant and concise. No redundancy or 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?

For a simple getter with one optional parameter, the description covers the output contents, the prerequisite workflow, and a key environment constraint. It doesn't address edge cases like what happens if the chart ID is invalid or if no chart exists, but the overall context is sufficient. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the description listing the returned state elements.

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 input schema already provides a thorough description of chartId (origin, example, default behavior when omitted). The description only repeats the dependency on nt_chart_list, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't elevate it.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves the current chart state and enumerates the components (symbol, timeframe, indicators, strategies). This explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nt_chart_list (list charts) or nt_chart_reload (reload chart). The verb 'Get' + resource 'current chart state' is specific and complete.

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?

Provides a clear usage instruction: 'Use nt_chart_list first to get chart IDs,' establishing a prerequisite workflow. Also states 'Local mode only,' which is a boundary condition. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives beyond the sequential hint, so it's not a full when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guide.

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