watchlist_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add' implies a mutating operation, it does not disclose side effects, success/failure behavior, or consequences of invalid input. The schema warns about symbol resolution, but that is in the parameter schema, not the tool description. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the purpose. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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's simplicity (one parameter, fully documented in schema, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. An agent knows the action and can read the schema for parameter details. Missing context includes success confirmation and any side effects, but these are minor for such a straightforward operation. A 4 reflects that it is mostly sufficient without being exhaustive.

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 description itself does not mention the parameter, but the schema description covers it fully (100% coverage), providing exchange-prefix requirements, examples, and warnings. Per the rubric, high schema coverage gives a baseline of 3, and the description adds no extra semantic value. Thus a 3 is justified.

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 'Add a symbol to the TradingView watchlist' states a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like watchlist_add_bulk (bulk add), watchlist_remove (removal), and watchlist_get (retrieval). The action is unambiguous and the tool's role is immediately clear.

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 itself provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the sibling tool name 'watchlist_add_bulk' implies this is for a single symbol, and the parameter schema mentions calling symbol_search/watchlist_get for exact spelling. This is implied usage rather than explicit exclusions, so a 3 is appropriate.

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