tv_get_study_values

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: it explains the ordering of bars ('newest last'), how rows are keyed by plot title, the dropping of colour/fill plots unless include_decoration is true, and the special handling of built-in studies (returning formatted strings). These edge cases are not covered by annotations and materially affect invocation expectations.

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 tightly written, front-loading the core purpose and then adding necessary caveats in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place, covering identification, return format, decoration filtering, and built-in study behavior without redundancy. It is concise yet complete.

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 read-only tool with a single required parameter and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential return format and edge cases (decoration plots, built-in studies). It does not need to explain the output schema since none exists, and the count/layout parameters are self-documented in the schema. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already fully documents every parameter. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond the schema: it reiterates that study accepts an id or name part (already in schema) and mentions the effect of include_decoration (also in schema). The description does not introduce new parameter semantics that would raise the score above the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb-resource pair ('Read the plotted values of one study') and explains how the study is identified (id or name fragment). It distinguishes itself from sibling read/write study tools by its explicit read-only scope and the data it returns. Even without naming a sibling, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (to fetch plotted values of a study) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like tv_get_study_inputs or tv_list_studies. However, the read-only nature and the mention of 'plotted values' make the context clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately. No exclusions are stated, but none are strictly needed.

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