Search TradingView symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output format (fully-qualified tickers) but does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens when no matches are found. However, as a read-only search, the main behavior is straightforward and the description does not mislead; it just adds limited extra context beyond the schema.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with a clear usage directive. It is perfectly sized for an agent to grasp quickly.

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 search tool with three parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential context: purpose, output format, and when to use it. It lacks an explicit description of the return structure (beyond the symbol format), but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are already informative (e.g., query examples, exchange restrictions). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 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 function: resolving a ticker, company name, or ISIN into fully-qualified TradingView tickers (EXCHANGE:SYMBOL). It uses a specific verb (resolve), specifies the resource (symbols), and defines the output format, making it distinct from sibling tools like tv_quote or tv_history.

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 explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'Use this first when the exchange is ambiguous, or when a symbol lookup failed elsewhere.' This gives concrete conditions and implies it is a first-resort for symbol resolution, clearly separating it from other tools that consume resolved symbols.

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