get_chart

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions some parameter behavior (e.g., unclosed for current day, limit capped at 5000) but does not state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or any rate limits/authentication needs.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose followed by parameter list. Some lines are slightly verbose (e.g., columns enumeration), but every sentence adds value. Could be tightened slightly without losing clarity.

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 8 parameters and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, error scenarios). Output schema exists so return details are handled elsewhere, but missing safety cues lower completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description explains all 8 parameters with format, defaults, examples (e.g., columns list, date format YYYY-MM-DD), and constraints (limit capped at 5000). This fully compensates for the schema deficit.

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 states the tool returns historical ETF performance chart data for one ISIN. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like compare_charts (multiple ISINs) and get_etf_profile (profile data).

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 purpose implies usage for a single ISIN historical data, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude when to use alternatives like compare_charts or mention conditions like required authentication.

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