load_more_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the key side effect (visible chart view unchanged) plus the return payload (bars added and new earliest bar time). It omits permissions, failure modes, or repeated-call behavior, but what is stated is enough for safe invocation.

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?

Two sentences: the first provides action and purpose, the second clarifies a non-effect and the return value. There is no filler and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 fully orients an agent: why to call it, what side effect it does not have, and what it returns. With no output schema, the stated return values are sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% and both count and chart_index already have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description names a specific verb ('Load'), a resource ('historical bars into a TradingView chart'), and a clear goal ('so that get_ohlcv and get_indicator_values can see further back'). It also distinguishes behavior from ordinary chart scrolling by noting the visible chart view is not changed.

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?

Clear context is provided: use this tool when get_ohlcv and get_indicator_values need older history. It also gives a useful when-not signal by stating the visible chart view is not changed, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or exclusionary condition.

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