chartimg_v2_advanced_chart_image

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so by revealing the return type, warning about response size, and explaining that width/height are auto-clamped to avoid HTTP 403. It does not cover rate limits or error cases, but the key behavioral traits are visible.

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 each sentence contributes distinct value: operation and endpoint, return format plus size warning, and clamping behavior. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 three parameters, a nested body, and no output schema, the description and schema together cover the essential calling context: endpoint, example body, return format, clamping, and the storage-tool alternative. It stops short of addressing error behavior and rate limits, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The top-level description adds little parameter meaning beyond echoing the auto-clamping detail already present in the body parameter description. The detailed example and doc link live in the schema rather than the description.

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 names a specific operation (POST advanced chart), a specific resource (/v2/tradingview/advanced-chart), and the concrete output format (base64 image data). It also separates itself from storage-oriented siblings by saying 'prefer storage tools', making the distinction clear even without naming the exact sibling.

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 provides a clear practical directive: responses can be large, so prefer storage tools when that matters. It could be more explicit about when the base64 image version is the right choice versus the storage variant, but the guidance is still actionable.

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