Inspect TradingView Supercharts state

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds valuable details about exactly which state is read and explicitly states that cookies are not exposed—an important privacy-relevant behavior not covered by 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?

One sentence efficiently conveys purpose, content, and a safety guarantee. Every word serves a purpose, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 inspection tool, the description covers all exposed state attributes and the key negative (no cookies). While it doesn't specify output format, the lack of an output schema makes that extra detail unnecessary.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no ambiguity, and the empty input schema is fully self-contained.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and details the exact state fields (chart URL, symbol, interval, authentication state, delayed-data flag), making it clear what the tool accesses. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like chart_get_state, though the field list helps narrow it down.

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 verb 'Read' and the annotations imply this is for safe, non-mutating inspection, but the description offers no explicit 'when to use this vs. that' guidance. Users must infer from the field list when this particular state reader is needed.

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