List all available prompts.
Returns JSON with prompt metadata including name, description, and optional arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with prompt metadata) and scope ('all available prompts'), which are useful behavioral details. It does not mention side effects or limitations, but for a simple list operation this is adequate.
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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core action, and the second adds relevant output details. No redundant or filler language.
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 no-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient. It clarifies that the tool returns metadata, not full prompt content, and uses 'all available prompts' to set scope. It lacks explicit relation to siblings but is complete for 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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers 100% of the (empty) parameter space. Per the rubric, the baseline for zero params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information since there is none to add.
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 lists all available prompts, distinguishing it from siblings like get_prompt (which retrieves a specific prompt) and list_docs/list_sections (which list other resources). The verb 'list' and resource 'prompts' are specific and unambiguous.
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 states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_prompt. No alternatives are mentioned, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so usage context 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_doc reads full files, get_section reads specific sections, list_docs and list_sections provide navigation, search_docs and resolve_topic offer different search methods, get_functions and validate_function handle function lookup, and get_prompt/list_prompts cover prompts. No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern consistently (e.g., get_doc, list_sections, search_docs). The naming convention is uniform with lowercase and underscores, making it predictable and easy for an agent to infer behavior.
With 10 tools, the count is well-scoped for a documentation and function lookup server. It provides sufficient coverage without being overwhelming, fitting within the ideal range of 3-15 tools.
The tool surface comprehensively covers documentation discovery, reading, searching, navigation, and function validation. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of accessing Pine Script v6 documentation and functions.