Get local chart state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Get the current chart summary' aligns without adding significant new behavioral detail. It does add the conditional note about includeBars, which hints that the response size grows when bars are requested, but it doesn't disclose what 'summary' contains or any potential quirks. No contradiction between description and annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, with the most important info first. Every word earns its place. The parameter guidance is front-loaded. Perfect length for a simple getter.

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's low complexity (1 optional boolean, no required params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and when to set the optional parameter. Annotations cover safety. A few more details about what constitutes a 'summary' would push it higher, but for this complexity level it's sufficiently 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 input schema only has includeBars as an optional boolean with 0% coverage, so the description carries the full burden. The line 'Set includeBars only when raw OHLCV is needed' directly clarifies when to set the parameter to true, effectively compensating for the schema's silence. It could be more detailed (e.g., what 'raw OHLCV' implies about response size) but gives the essential meaning.

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 uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'current chart summary', which is specific and distinct from most sibling tools. It doesn't explicitly contrast with similar state getters like tradingview_get_state, but within the chart_* family it stands out by focusing on the summary. The phrase 'current chart summary' adds enough scope.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. However, the instruction 'Set includeBars only when raw OHLCV is needed' implies the tool has an optional bar-fetching mode, which gives some usage context. This is more than nothing but still leaves the agent to infer when to choose this over siblings.

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