Read the latest loaded candle; this is not a bid/ask quote.
Read the latest loaded candle; this is not a bid/ask quote.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_id | No | Exact Chrome tab target ID from browser_list_tabs. Required for changes. | |
| expected_layout_id | No | Expected saved-layout ID. A mismatch stops the operation before writing. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by saying the value is the 'latest loaded candle' and not a live bid/ask quote, implying chart-data freshness semantics rather than real-time quote semantics. It does not describe missing-data behavior or return shape, which keeps it below a 5.
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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. The key distinction from a quote is front-loaded after the action statement.
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 tool with full parameter documentation and annotations, the description covers the core action and the quote distinction. However, with no output schema, it could say more about the returned candle fields or behavior when no bar is loaded, leaving a modest completeness gap.
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 both optional parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is acceptable given full schema coverage but not above baseline.
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 verb and resource: 'Read the latest loaded candle.' It also distinguishes the result from a bid/ask quote, which helps separate it from quote_get and quote_batch siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from data_get_ohlcv, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.
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 phrase 'this is not a bid/ask quote' gives useful negative guidance about when not to use this tool. However, it does not state when to use it instead of data_get_ohlcv or quote_get, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.