get_tradingview_chart_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the tool returns historical OHLCV data and is read-only in nature, but it does not mention ordering, inclusivity of timestamps, pagination, response shape, or any rate limits or data availability caveats.

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 two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence adds practical use-case context without redundancy or filler.

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 historical data retrieval tool, the description combined with a fully documented schema is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. The main gap is the lack of an output schema or any explicit statement about the response format beyond 'OHLCV candlestick data,' but the core calling contract is clear.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond framing the data as historical OHLCV, which aligns with the start/end timestamp parameters.

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 and resource: 'Get OHLCV candlestick data for any instrument.' This clearly identifies what the tool returns and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ticker or get_index_price, which serve different data purposes.

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 second sentence gives useful context ('price charts, technical analysis, historical price research') that implies when this tool should be used, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. With many market-data siblings available, explicit routing would have been stronger.

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