chart_get_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly signals a read operation and names what is returned, but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., whether a chart/tab must be open) or whether the indicators list is full details or just names. Adequate for a zero-parameter read, but not riich behavioral context.

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 zero waste: the verb and resource come first, and the parenthetical enumerates the return contents economically. Every word carries meaning.

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 with no output schema, the description gives a usable summary of what comes back. The main gaps are the lack of an explicit return shape (a booleans? strings? a structure?) and any prerequisite about an active chart, but the complexity is low enough that this is nearly complete.

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, which is the baseline-4 case per the rubric. There is nothing for the description to explain, and it correctly avoids inventing param information.

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 ('Get') and resource ('current chart state') and enumerates the exact contents: symbol, timeframe, chart type, indicators. This clearly distinguishes it from the chart_set_* siblings (mutators) and chart_get_visible_range (a narrower getter for a different aspect of the chart).

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?

Usage is implied by the 'Get' verb and the listed state components, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over related getters like symbol_info, tv_ui_state, or chart_get_visible_range. There are no exclusions or alternative routing, so it sts at implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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