get_replay_status

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 discloses the read-only nature ('This is read-only') and explicitly lists the actions it does not perform. This is strong transparency for a status tool, though it doesn't mention edge cases like whether a replay must be active or what happens if none is active.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and object are front-loaded, and the list of included state elements adds precision without redundancy.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description still tells the agent what data will be available (state, binding, cursor time, resolution) and confirms non-mutating behavior. It could add a note about return format or preconditions, but for a simple read-only status tool the description is mostly complete.

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, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description logically covers what state is read, which serves as implicit context for why no parameters are needed. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 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 uses the specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource: 'current TradingView Bar Replay state', and enumerates exactly what is read (active chart binding, historical cursor time, replay resolution). It also explicitly states what it does NOT do ('never starts, advances, or stops replay trading'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like start_chart_replay, step_chart_replay, and stop_chart_replay.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to inspect the current replay state rather than mutate it. By stating it 'never starts, advances, or stops' replay, it signals that this is not the tool for controlling replay. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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