get_chart

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does describe the metric structure and lookback window, but doesn't mention return format, frequency of data points, whether historical adjustments are made, or any rate-limiting concerns. It's a read operation, which is reasonably clear.

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?

Three concise sentences with zero filler. The provided examples and days explanation are efficient and front-loaded. Slightly sparse but every sentence earns its place.

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, so the description must hint at return semantics; the metric examples partially convey this. Given the moderate complexity (3 params, no enums) and no output schema, the description is adequate but could benefit from noting data granularity (daily/eod) and source limitations.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 3 parameters. The description adds modest value by showing real metric examples ('Price-DMA50-Volume', 'Quarter Sales', 'EPS') that illustrate valid key formats beyond the generic schema field. Baseline 3 with slight credit for concrete examples.

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 it provides time-series data for an Indian stock from a specific API, with concrete metric examples. It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings (get_financials, get_fundamentals target fundamentals/ratios, not chart series), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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 implies when to use (when you need time-series/chart data for an Indian stock) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. With siblings like get_financials and get_fundamentals, the guidance is only implicit via the metric examples.

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