chartimg_v2_advanced_chart_storage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral load. It discloses the HTTP method, the hosted-URL return format, and the width/height auto-clamping safeguard that prevents HTTP 403. This goes beyond the schema fields by explaining why the clamp exists, which is genuinely useful.

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 main description is compact and front-loaded: action, storage target, return type, then routing advice. The auto-clamp behavior appears in both the main description and body schema description, which is a minor redundancy but not harmful.

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 definition covers the endpoint, return shape, an example body, optional cookie params, and a key error-avoidance behavior; for a no-output-schema tool that is reasonably complete. It could improve by explicitly stating that a chart body is expected despite the schema listing zero required parameters, so just short of a 5.

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 body property description adds a doc link, a concrete Binance example, and auto-clamp behavior, while the session cookie params are clearly labeled optional. This adds real guidance beyond the raw property definitions.

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 specific operation: POST an advanced chart to storage and get back a hosted image URL. It names the endpoint explicitly and even points users to chartimg_snapshot for common cases, which helps differentiate among the sibling tools. The 'storage' wording and v2 marker make it distinct from image-returning or layout variants.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer chartimg_snapshot for common cases', which gives a clear alternative and implies this tool is for advanced/stored chart cases. However, it doesn't provide a complete routing to all relevant siblings such as chartimg_v2_advanced_chart_image, so the guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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