tv_chart_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' reaffirms this. The description adds value by detailing the specific metadata returned (symbol, timeframe, etc.), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists output details. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and annotations already cover safety, the description is largely complete. However, the lack of an output schema means the agent might need more detail on the exact format of the returned metadata (e.g., data types). The description partially compensates by listing fields.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description's main contribution is explaining what the tool returns. The list of metadata fields (symbol, timeframe, etc.) adds meaning beyond the empty schema, making it helpful for an agent.

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 explicitly states 'Read visible chart metadata' and enumerates the specific metadata fields (symbol, timeframe, indicators, strategies, overlays, pane count). This provides a clear, specific verb-resource mapping that distinguishes it from sibling tools like tv_read_chart which likely reads price data.

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 mentions 'Read-only' but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tv_read_chart, tv_status, or tv_screenshot. The usage context is implied but lacks exclusions or comparative advice.

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