get_aligned_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states the tool 'never changes charts and never forward-fills' and describes how edge cases are handled: 'forming bars, different resolutions, missing bars, and retrieval failures are reported as quality conditions.' This is unusually transparent.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose is first, behavioral caveats second, and usage prerequisite last. Every sentence contributes distinct, needed information.

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 description covers purpose, side effects, quality reporting, and usage prerequisites, which is strong given the parameter schema. The only notable gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not describe the shape of the returned aligned data, so an agent still has some uncertainty about the exact response.

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 input schema already documents count, chart_indexes, and max_missing_ratio. The description adds context about prerequisites and quality conditions but does not meaningfully extend parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 names a specific verb ('Align'), resource ('closed OHLCV bars already loaded in two or more TradingView layout charts'), and a precise criterion ('exact UTC timestamps'). This clearly differentiates the tool from data-loading siblings like get_ohlcv and load_more_history.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: 'Use a layout where each required market is already open.' It also implies data must already be loaded and that forward-filling will not happen, which shapes when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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