get_price_action_context_template

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the template is audited, that marks and alerts are gated on bar close, and that nothing appears intrabar and then disappears. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a key behavioral guarantee, then a concise usage workflow. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition 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 zero-parameter template retrieval, the description covers what the template does, its behavioral guarantees, and the expected next steps. It does not explicitly state the exact return format, but the reference to save_pine_script implies the template is a script object, so no critical gap remains.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('audited Pine template') and states exactly what the template marks: pin bars, engulfing bars, and 20-bar sweeps. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_price_action_context by explicitly naming that tool as the later consumption step.

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 workflow: save it with save_pine_script, add it once with add_pine_to_chart, then use get_price_action_context. This tells an agent when this tool fits in a sequence, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternative template getters.

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