chart_get_visible_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It makes the read-only nature explicit with 'Get' and specifies what is returned (unix timestamps and bars range). It does not mention prerequisites like whether a chart must be open, but for a simple getter the core behavior is transparent.

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?

One sentence that leads with the action and resource, gives the timestamp format parenthetically, and names the second returned component. Zero filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter getter, this is mostly adequate, but no output schema exists and 'bars range' is left underspecified (e.g., indexes vs count vs offsets). The description names the return categories but does not fully define their structure or units.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is baseline 4. The input schema is empty, so there is no parameter information for the description to clarify or supplement.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('visible date range'), an explicit format ('unix timestamps'), and a second resource ('bars range'). This clearly separates it from the setter sibling chart_set_visible_range and from the more general chart_get_state.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as chart_get_state or chart_set_visible_range. The usage is only implied by the tool name and the simple 'Get' verb.

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