stop_chart_replay

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the primary effect (returning to real-time mode) and the key requirement that confirm=true is needed when replay or its toolbar is active. It does not detail edge cases such as calling it when no replay is active, but the core behavior is transparent 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?

The description is short and front-loaded, with the action and effect stated first and the parameter requirement second. It loses a point because 'Preview or stop' is slightly awkward and could be more direct, but there is no wasted content.

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 tool with one simple boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool does, the condition under which confirm is required, and the resulting chart state. It could mention what happens when replay is not active, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 input schema already documents the confirm parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that confirm=true is required specifically when replay or its toolbar is active, which is a useful condition beyond the schema's 'Must be true to leave Bar Replay.'

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 states a clear action on a specific resource: it stops or exits TradingView Bar Replay and returns the chart to real-time mode. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_chart_replay and step_chart_replay, though the phrase 'Preview or stop' introduces slight ambiguity about whether previewing and stopping are different actions.

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 clear context: this tool is used when Bar Replay or its toolbar is active and the chart should return to real-time mode. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling tool names make the intended usage easy to infer.

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