get_ohlcv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context: data is scoped to the loaded chart bars and time is in unix seconds. However, it does not mention read-only safety, response ordering, error behavior, or that chart_index refers to the active chart by default.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Both the 'currently loaded' scope qualifier and the unix-seconds note earn their place.

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 simple read tool with two optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description plus schema is mostly complete. It lists all returned fields and the time format; only response ordering and array shape are left implicit, which is a minor gap given the straightforward nature of the tool.

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%, with count and chart_index fully documented including defaults and bounds. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond clarifying the output time unit, which is not a parameter, 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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('OHLCV candle data'), and the scope ('currently loaded in a TradingView chart'). The parenthetical field list removes ambiguity and distinguishes it from quote or indicator retrieval tools.

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 phrase 'currently loaded in a TradingView chart' implies the intended use case, distinguishing it from broader market data tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like get_quotes or get_indicator_values, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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