get_chart

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states 'Historical OHLCV data. Free.' which hints at read-only behavior but does not disclose response format, rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. This is minimal and leaves many unknowns for a data-fetching tool.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified—it omits necessary information about parameters and usage. While there is no fluff, the brevity is not 'appropriate' for a tool with three parameters and no output schema, so it does not earn a higher score.

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 tool with three parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It should explain the meaning of range/interval, give expectations about the return format, and clarify any constraints. Essentially nothing beyond the tool's core purpose is covered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention symbol, range, or interval at all, and provides zero semantic context for the values. The agent is left to infer meaning solely from parameter names and enums, which is insufficient.

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 the verb 'get' (implied by name) and resource 'chart', and specifies it returns historical OHLCV data. This is clear about what it does. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_quote or technical_analysis, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for historical data as opposed to current quotes (get_quote) or derived indicators (technical_analysis). The word 'Historical' implies a use case, but there is no explicit comparison or exclusion.

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