Read paginated loaded OHLCV history with explicit units and coverage; no fixed 500-bar ceiling.
Read paginated loaded OHLCV history with explicit units and coverage; no fixed 500-bar ceiling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts: only 'loaded' history is served and responses carry explicit units and coverage. It says nothing about what 'loaded' means in practice (which symbol/timeframe/pane supplies the data) or pagination traversal cost.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the pagination and ceiling claims come first. However, the terseness leaves no room for the scope caveats the tool actually needs.
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 5-parameter tool with 40% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is thin: there is no way to learn which chart/pane/symbol the 'loaded' data comes from, how limit/offset interact, or why browser- and layout-oriented parameters appear on an OHLCV read. The 'explicit units and coverage' claim is not expanded enough to substitute for the missing output schema.
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 coverage is only 40%, so the description must compensate, yet it explains none of limit, offset, or order beyond the word 'paginated'. It also leaves the two described parameters (target_id 'Required for changes', expected_layout_id 'A mismatch stops the operation before writing') unaddressed, which is especially confusing for a read tool.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (read OHLCV history) plus the scoping traits 'paginated' and 'loaded'. It does not name or distinguish itself from closely related siblings like data_get_last_bar or data_export_ohlcv, so an agent must still infer which read path applies.
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?
No indication of when to prefer this over data_get_last_bar (single bar), data_export_ohlcv (export), or data_get_study_values. The phrase 'no fixed 500-bar ceiling' hints at large-range use, but no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.