data_get_chart_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'generates URLs' and lists the sites, implying a read-only operation. It is clear about its functionality, though it does not disclose potential restrictions like API keys or rate limits, which is acceptable for a simple link-generating tool.

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 remarkably concise: two short paragraphs with a bulleted list. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds detail without redundancy. Every sentence contributes value.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema present. The description covers the purpose and examples adequately. It could mention the structure of the returned data, but since an output schema exists, this is not a major gap.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'ticker' parameter. The tool description does not add any additional semantics, such as format or case sensitivity, beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: providing links to financial charting websites. It lists specific examples (TradingView, Finviz, Yahoo Finance, StockCharts), differentiating it from sibling tools like data_fetch_stock_data or generate_backtest_charts that handle raw data or chart generation.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It implies usage when chart links are needed but lacks comparisons to sibling tools or conditions for avoidance.

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