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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the 'read-only scanner query' line is largely redundant. The description nonetheless adds substantive behavior the schema does not carry: a per-call price of $0.002 in USDC, the x402 payment rail across Base/Solana/Arc, and a guarantee that failed calls are not charged. Rate limits and what happens on an empty market are not covered.

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 core capability and its output fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the filtering constraint, then sibling routing, then pricing. Every sentence carries information, though the pricing sentence packs payment chains and pricing policy into one dense clause that could be split for scanability.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape needn't be explained further; both parameters are schema-documented, and the description adds defaults, cost, and a sibling alternative. For a two-parameter read-only query this is nearly complete, with only edge-case behavior (empty results, market-name validation) left implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the default market (america) and frames 'limit' as a row count with no other filters available, which adds a little semantic framing but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's own enumerations and bounds.

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 names the specific verb and resource (TradingView stock screener query) and enumerates the returned fields: symbol, last price, daily change, in TradingView's default order. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the one TradingView sibling, finance_tradingview_ideas. It does not differentiate from other equity-screeners on the server such as finance_finviz or finance_stockanalysis, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 states the usage boundary clearly ('no filters beyond market and count', read-only scanner query) and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it ('when you need TradingView public trading ideas'). What's missing is a positive cue for when a screener is the right choice over other quote/listing tools, and there is no when-not-to-use guidance beyond the single sibling callout.

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