price_chart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that indicators are computed on the full series (not thinned), that samples are thinned, and that a reliability flag (indicators_reliable) along with coverage and median_gap_min indicate data quality. It also explains the return format. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but for a data query tool this is substantial.

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 somewhat long but every sentence adds value: purpose, thinning behavior, return format, indicator computation, reliability warning, and alternative tool. It is well-organized with the key caveat in an IMPORTANT section. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 description covers the return format, indicator computation, and reliability caveats thoroughly, but it omits semantics for the `date` and `days` parameters. Since there is no output schema, the description does explain the return values well, but the input parameters are only partially documented (points only). This leaves an agent guessing about date/days, making the description incomplete 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 0% and the description only explains the `points` parameter (default 120, max 400). The `date` and `days` parameters are not described at all, leaving their semantics ambiguous. The description does mention output fields like thinned_every and bar_count, but these are not input parameters, so they don't compensate for the missing input parameter explanations.

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 provides intraday bars for a symbol with RSI-9 and MACD(12,26,9), and explicitly distinguishes it from price_history for daily data. The verb 'Intraday bars' plus the indicator specification makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings.

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 to use price_history for daily history over months or years, and provides a crucial usage guideline to check indicators_reliable before trusting indicator values, with a fallback instruction to describe price only when unreliable. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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