tv_auth_watchlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure; it does convey that the operation is best-effort and requires cookie/session credentials for private data. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what happens on missing or invalid credentials, or what the returned data represents.

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 focused sentence with no redundant phrasing; 'best-effort' and the auth requirement are front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing parameter detail rather than being deliberately minimal in the right places.

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?

This tool has 7 optional parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to explain what the watchlist monitor returns and how the parameters shape it. It covers only the auth requirement and omits output, selector semantics, and failure behavior, leaving a substantial gap.

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%, yet the description only vaguely alludes to cookie/session parameters. It provides no meaning for limit, market, exchange, or reference_symbol, so an agent cannot determine how to set or combine these parameters from the description.

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 identifies the resource as a TradingView watchlist monitor and specifies the authenticated mode, with 'best-effort' hinting at behavior. It is clear enough about the tool's domain, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as tv_auth_custom_lists, so full differentiation is left to inference.

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 parenthetical 'cookie/session required for private list context' provides clear guidance on when authentication inputs are needed. It does not name alternative tools or state when another endpoint should be preferred, but the context is specific enough for a basic selection decision.

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