tv_auth_symbol_analytics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that authentication is inherited from a supplied TradingView cookie/session, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens when credentials are missing or invalid, or any rate-limit/session requirements.

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, tightly scoped sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and adds the key auth context parenthetically, which is an efficient structure for an agent to parse.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide more operational completeness. It does not explain what 'analytics' includes, whether cookie or session parameters are required in practice despite being optional in the schema, what defaults like market='america' and exchange='NASDAQ' imply, or how failures manifest. This is not enough for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for six undocumented parameters. It only alludes to cookie/session inputs and gives no explanation of symbol, market, exchange, or how the auth parameters relate to each other. This leaves an agent unable to confidently construct correct arguments.

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 action ('Fetch TradingView symbol analytics') and the key differentiator ('authenticated mode'), which helps distinguish it from the unauthenticated tv_scrape_symbol_analytics sibling. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from tv_auth_symbol_full or other TradingView auth siblings, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 gives clear context: use this when a TradingView cookie/session is available and account entitlements should be inherited. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the authenticated-mode framing strongly implies the appropriate context relative to the unauthenticated scrape siblings.

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