chart_set_timeframe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the core mutation—changing the chart's timeframe—but says nothing about side effects, whether the chart must already exist, how the change affects indicators or overlays, or what happens on failure. This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and low overall complexity.

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 simple one-parameter setter, the core invocation is clear and the schema covers the input details. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits useful contextual information such as prerequisites, expected outcome, and how this differs from related chart operations. It is adequate but not fully 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 schema already provides a complete description of the single 'timeframe' parameter with examples, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds only the synonym 'resolution' and no additional format, constraints, or domain guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Change') and a specific resource ('the chart timeframe/resolution'), making the tool's purpose clear. It largely restates the tool name but adds 'resolution' as a synonym for timeframe. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like chart_set_symbol or tv_launch, so it does not earn 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as an active chart, and no indication of when a timeframe change is appropriate. The correct usage context is entirely left to the agent to infer.

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