tv_get_chart_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only' reinforces rather than contradicts them. Beyond annotations, the description adds genuine value by disclosing the full inventory of returned data, which tells the agent what it will receive before calling. It omits failure behavior (e.g., when no chart is open), but for a simple getter the bar is met.

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 verb and resource front-loaded, followed by a dense, useful list of returned fields. The second sentence 'Read-only' slightly duplicates the annotation but is harmless and costs little. No wasted words.

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 low-complexity read tool with zero required parameters, 100% schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the definition is essentially complete — nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing. Minor gaps are the loosely typed 'extended symbol info' and the lack of an output schema or no-chart failure behavior.

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 100%: both layout and expect_layout carry detailed descriptions including default-tab semantics and the refusal condition when the tab shows a different layout. The tool description adds nothing about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('Read') with a concrete resource ('the active chart') and enumerates the exact payload: symbol, extended symbol info, resolution, chart type, study count, saved layout name and layout id. This naturally separates it from siblings like tv_get_bars and tv_set_symbol, though it never names a sibling explicitly, so it misses the top score.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The returned layout name/id overlaps with tv_list_layouts, the study count overlaps with tv_list_studies, and the symbol/resolution fields overlap with tv_get_bars, yet the description offers no decision rule for choosing among them. The 'Read-only' tag merely describes what it is, not when to reach for it.

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