Set chart OHLCV data

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: false, suggesting this is a state-changing operation, which aligns with 'Replace the chart'. The description adds that it's user-provided data and caps at 10,000 bars, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like whether existing chart state is lost, or if this triggers a data fetch. The description adds a bit but doesn't fully disclose behavioral implications beyond what annotations hint.

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, compact sentence with no fluff. It conveys the action, input type, and constraint in under 15 words. Every word earns its place.

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 data-setting tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete for its purpose. It clarifies the core action and the primary constraint (max 10,000). However, it could mention that it's a full replacement (not merge) and what happens to existing chart state, which would make it a 5.

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 50%, and the description adds visible semantics by specifying 'OHLCV bars' and the 10,000 maximum, which directly relates to the 'bars' parameter. However, the schema already provides maxItems/minItems constraints and parameter descriptions for symbol and interval. The description adds value by clarifying the data origin (user-provided) and the bar limit, but it doesn't elaborate on all parameters (e.g., source) beyond schema.

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 'Replace the chart with inline, user-provided OHLCV bars' uses a specific verb ('Replace'), names the resource ('chart'), and clearly differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'inline, user-provided' data. It stands out from sibling chart tools like chart_import_csv or chart_open by implying this takes data directly rather than from a file or URL.

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 clearly implies usage: use this when you want to set chart data from inline user-provided OHLCV bars. It provides a maximum limit (10,000) which is useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., chart_import_csv) or when not to use it, but the naming and description are clear enough within the sibling context.

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