chartimg_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses defaults (5m, dark, candles, volume on) and automatic width/height clamping. However, it does not explain what 'storage' means in practice, such as where the snapshot is stored, whether existing entries are overwritten, or what the agent receives in return.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the agent-facing recommendation first and defaults grouped efficiently. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate for basic invocation but incomplete. It covers the critical symbol/defaults/clamping behavior yet omits the return value or storage location, and it doesn't explicitly situate this tool against the sibling v2 advanced chart tools.

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 64%, so the description is not required to fully replace the schema. It adds useful semantics around full-symbol requirements and clamped max dimensions, but it adds little beyond the schema's own defaults and descriptions for parameters like interval, theme, extraStudies, and session cookies.

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 identifies the operation as a 'one-call TradingView snapshot' and specifies the pipeline 'v2 advanced → storage', which distinguishes it from image-only or storage-only siblings. It lacks an explicit verb like 'captures' and doesn't name a specific sibling, but the resource and flow are clear enough.

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?

It opens with 'Preferred for agents' and 'one-call', signaling this is the convenient combined path, and instructs the agent to supply a full symbol. It doesn't explicitly state when to use the storage-only or image-only siblings instead, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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