get_chart_annotations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention permissions, return format, error conditions, or rate limits. The word 'döner' (returns) hints at read behavior, but beyond that no behavioral context is disclosed.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and concise. It contains no filler or redundancy, and every word contributes to the core meaning. It is appropriately sized for a simple get tool.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and the description is minimal, the tool lacks essential context. The agent does not know what the return value looks like, how to handle optional parameters, or when this tool is preferable over alternatives. For a tool with 4 parameters and no other documentation, the description is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains the required parameters 'symbol' and 'timeframe' via 'Sembol+timeframe'in', but the optional parameters 'request_id' and 'idempotency_key' are completely unaddressed. The schema provides no descriptions either, leaving these parameters ambiguous.

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 registered annotations for a given symbol and timeframe ('Sembol+timeframe'in kayıtlı işaretlemelerini döner'). The verb 'döner' (returns) is specific and the resource is clearly identified. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like annotate_chart or clear_annotations, but the read-only retrieval nature is evident from the verb and tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state whether to use it before or after annotate_chart, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The implied use case (retrieving chart annotations) is present but not explicit enough to guide an agent in choosing between this and similar tools.

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