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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description need not repeat those. It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the possible verdicts (COMPLETED, NOT_COMPLETED, NO_RANGE) and the structure of each result (support, resistance, rejections, break time). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate output shape.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary action, and immediately provides the verdict taxonomy and output structure. There is zero fluff or repetition of schema content. Every word earns its place.

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 output schema exists, so return values are presumably documented there. The description nonetheless explains the verdicts and the components of each structure, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior. Given the low complexity (4 optional params, no nesting), the description covers everything needed for correct 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 coverage is 100% and all parameters have descriptions, so the schema already documents days, symbol, end_date, and timeframe. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning beyond referencing 'the window', which is already implied by the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic load.

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 action ('Detect a range in the window') with clear scope, and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_futures_bars and get_range_chart by focusing on analysis rather than data retrieval or charting. It also enumerates the verdicts, which clarifies the tool's core purpose without ambiguity.

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 no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings (get_futures_bars, capture_chart, get_range_chart). It only describes what it does, not the conditions or use cases that would make it the preferred option. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those by specifying that the chart is framed on exactly the trading-day window and that the operation takes 20-40 seconds. No contradiction exists.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the latency warning earns its place as an operational hint.

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 a rich input schema, safety annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the main operational facts: what it captures, the window framing, and the expected delay. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning when to choose this over get_range_chart, but that gap does not undermine correct 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 input schema already documents all five parameters with defaults, examples, and meanings. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and does not, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Screenshot') and resource ('TradingView chart'), and adds a key scoping detail about the trading-day window. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_range_chart.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a screenshot of a TradingView chart is needed, especially one aligned to a trading-day window. It provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, and the latency note is useful but does not help with sibling selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by detailing what the output includes (Relative Volume, zone, session, summaries), which is beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context about the data returned.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core output and key derived fields. It front-loads the primary content (OHLCV bars) and lists the enhancements. There is no redundant information, and every phrase earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, full parameter coverage in the schema, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the return content adequately. Minor gaps like default window length or date format are covered by the schema, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 all parameters (days, symbol, end_date, timeframe, include_bars) are already documented with descriptions and defaults. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and it doesn't. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden and the description adds no extra semantics.

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 clearly states the tool returns OHLCV bars for a trading-day window, with additional computed fields (Relative Volume, zone, session, summaries). It specifies the resource (futures bars) and the nature of the output. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_range_chart, but the purpose is evident from the name and content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only describes the output, not the context in which it should be selected. For a tool with siblings like get_range_chart, this omission leaves the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description adds the important behavioral context that a call takes 30-50 seconds and returns both a chart and a report. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core output and ending with the critical latency caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema, safety annotations, and fully described optional parameters, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned and how long it takes. It could add more about report contents or prerequisites, but that is likely covered by the output schema.

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; all parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, but little is needed because the schema carries the full burden.

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 clearly identifies the deliverable: a TradingView chart with the detected range drawn on it, plus a report. This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_range and capture_chart. It relies on the tool name for the verb and does not explicitly name alternatives, so it just misses the top score.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus analyze_range or capture_chart. There are no ordering dependencies, exclusions, or alternative-selection hints. The latency note is behavioral information, not usage guidance.

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