tv_read_chart

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which the description does not contradict. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned (symbol, timeframe, diagnostics, host client), giving the agent a clearer picture of the tool's behavior and output without needing to invoke it.

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 sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose as an alias and lists its return values. It is front-loaded with the alias information, making the core function immediately clear. No unnecessary words 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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function. A minor improvement could be noting the output format (e.g., JSON object), but the listed fields suffice.

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 the input schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information. It correctly omits any parameter details, as there are none to document.

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's an alias for tv_status and lists the returned items (symbol, timeframe, etc.), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling tools beyond noting the alias, relying on the user to understand that it's equivalent to tv_status.

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 use when the status information is needed by stating it's an alias for tv_status. It offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives beyond the alias mention. An agent might wonder when to choose this tool over tv_status itself or other status-related tools.

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