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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only,' which is a behavioral trait, and clarifies it returns the 'most-recent' data for the 'current chart.' However, it does not disclose potential restrictions (e.g., rate limits, behavior if no chart is active) or other side effects beyond the read-only nature.

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 with no redundant words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second lists fields. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return fields and read-only nature. It lacks explanation of 'current chart' context or error conditions, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single parameter 'limit,' and the schema already provides a detailed description (maximum number, range 1-2000, default 500). The description adds no extra semantics for the parameter but lists the output fields, which is useful though not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the most-recent OHLCV candle bars for the current chart, with a specific verb and resource. It lists the fields (timestamp, open, high, low, close, volume) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_chart_context, get_drawings, get_indicators, get_provider_status) as the only one returning price data.

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 use for retrieving recent OHLCV data but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions to avoid using it. No sibling comparisons or prerequisites are given.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other aspects like authentication needs or behavior when no chart is loaded, though for a simple read-only operation this is acceptable.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose, lists key return fields, and appends 'Read-only.' Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and its read-only nature. The sibling tools cover separate concerns, so this description is complete for its intended use.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params, 100% schema description coverage trivially). The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, which is beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that.

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?

Description begins with 'Returns the current MyLinedChart chart and workspace summary' which clearly states the verb and resource. It lists specific fields (symbol, timeframe, etc.) and is distinct from sibling tools that return specific data types like candles, drawings, indicators, or provider status.

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?

While the description implies this tool is for getting a broad snapshot of the current state, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_candles or get_drawings. No when-not or conditions for use 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?

The description explicitly labels the tool as 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and adequately discloses the nature of the operation.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the purpose and includes a list of examples, with no wasted words.

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 simple, no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main aspects. It could mention that the current symbol is determined by the chart context, but 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?

No parameters exist, so the description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline score of 4 applies per guidelines for tools with zero parameters and 100% schema coverage.

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 all drawings and price levels for the current chart symbol, listing specific types (trend lines, horizontal levels, note labels). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_candles or get_indicators.

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 (when you need chart drawings and price levels) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Read-only' and lists what is returned and excluded. No annotations are present, so the description fully covers behavioral traits without contradictions.

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-loading the core purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value, with no superfluous information.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what is returned (name, calculation parameters, placement, visibility) and what is excluded (series data). It is complete for its simplicity.

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?

There are no parameters. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no additional parameter information, which 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 that the tool returns configured indicators for the current chart, listing specific attributes (name, calculation parameters, placement, visibility). It explicitly excludes series data, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_candles.

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 (to get indicator configuration) and when not (if series data is needed, use get_candles instead). It clearly states the output scope, but could be more explicit about alternatives.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and lists what it does not expose (account IDs, credentials, bridge URLs). However, it does not mention rate limits or other behavioral constraints.

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 very concise with two sentences. The first sentence provides the core purpose and return fields, while the second adds important privacy and read-only information. No unnecessary words.

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 has no output schema, the description adequately lists the key return fields (connection state, MarketDataStatus code, feed type, diagnostics ID, last-updated). However, it does not describe the structure or types of these fields, which would be helpful for an agent.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description effectively describes what the tool returns, adding context beyond the empty schema.

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 status information for IBKR connector and market-data provider, listing specific fields (connection state, MarketDataStatus code, feed type, diagnostics ID, last-updated). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_candles' and 'get_chart_context' which serve entirely different purposes.

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 usage for checking status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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