get_mtf_overview

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 clearly states the operation does NOT touch the user's chart and that it batches multiple timeframes and symbols into one call. It does not discuss return format, rate limits, or data freshness, but the key non-mutating behavior is explicit.

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 dense but not bloated; every clause adds information. It front-loads the core distinguishing trait (no chart mutation) and packs the default fields and multi-symbol comparison into the first sentence. The second sentence provides a concrete use case. Minor readability loss from the long dash-connected first sentence.

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 what the tool does, when to use it, and how to use it. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without explicit information about the response shape, how results are organized, or whether any read-related caveats exist. This is a moderate gap for a tool intended to support analysis decisions.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by listing the default indicator fields (close, RSI, ADX, ATR, EMA20, SMA50, SMA200, Recommend.*), explaining that the same fields appear across timeframes, and clarifying that multiple symbols can be compared in one call.

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 a multi-timeframe overview of indicator fields for one or more symbols in a single call, without touching the user's chart. It explicitly differentiates itself from set_timeframe and other chart-focused tools by emphasizing the non-mutating behavior.

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 explicit usage guidance: use for top-down analysis before or instead of set_timeframe, and pass multiple symbols to compare majors side by side. It names an alternative and provides context, though it does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases with other sibling tools.

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