asset_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses non-obvious behaviors: only confirmed bars are rendered, exchange-specific delay affects completion, sessions takes precedence over days, and the return includes metadata fields. This adds value beyond the schema and gives the agent a realistic model of tool behavior.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, a bullet-like input list, and a separate paragraph for rendering behavior and return metadata. Every sentence adds functional detail without filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything needed: input semantics, precedence rules, rendering logic, and a comprehensive list of return metadata fields. It fully compensates for the missing structured information.

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%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so thoroughly: asset format (EXCHANGE:SYMBOL preferred, legacy SYMBOL:EXCHANGE accepted), timeframe enum values, timestamp ISO-8601, days range 1-365, sessions meaning, and response_version constraint. This is essential guidance that the schema alone would not provide.

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 a PNG candlestick and volume chart ending at a requested time. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like asset_bars (likely raw price data) and asset_analysis (likely analytical output).

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 clear context for when the tool is appropriate (chart generation with specific parameters) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling names are visible but not referenced, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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