生成走势字符图

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. The description contradicts the input schema by claiming the chart is based on a 'provided price list' when no such parameter exists; the actual inputs are market and symbol. This is a significant behavioral disclosure failure, as the agent cannot infer how data is obtained or what output to expect.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It earns its place, though the content is problematic. Its brevity is a positive trait in itself.

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?

The tool is simple (2 scalar parameters, no output schema), but the description is incomplete. It fails to describe the output format or behavior, and the misleading 'price list' reference creates ambiguity. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should at least clarify how the tool operates, but it does not.

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% for both parameters (market and symbol), so the schema already documents the parameters adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 generates a simple ASCII trend chart and mentions the purpose of visually displaying trends. However, it refers to a 'provided price list' while the input schema expects a market and symbol, which is somewhat misleading. It somewhat distinguishes from the sibling draw_crypto_chart by name, but not explicitly in the description.

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 like draw_crypto_chart. It does not mention supported markets, exclusions (e.g., crypto), or typical use cases. Usage context is only implied by the schema's market parameter.

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