tv_preopen_batch_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: per-symbol error isolation, meaning one symbol's failure won't abort the whole batch. However, it omits other significant behaviors such as authentication requirements (cookie, sessionid, sessionid_sign, authenticated parameters imply session dependency) and the bounded concurrency behavior (max_concurrency).

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?

A single 13-word sentence with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded ('Return TradingView pre-open snapshots for a symbol list') and the distinguishing behavioral trait ('per-symbol error isolation') comes second. Every word earns its place.

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 9-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description carries a heavy burden and covers only the core purpose. Missing context includes auth/session prerequisites, the meaning of market/exchange/compact, return format, and the boundary against the singular tv_preopen_symbol_snapshot sibling.

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, but it only adds meaning to one parameter: 'symbol list' maps to the `symbols` array. The remaining eight parameters (cookie, market, compact, exchange, sessionid, authenticated, sessionid_sign, max_concurrency) are left entirely unexplained in both the schema and 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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a concrete resource ('TradingView pre-open snapshots'), and a scope ('for a symbol list'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling tv_preopen_symbol_snapshot, and 'per-symbol error isolation' adds a distinctive batch trait no other sibling claims.

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 phrasing 'for a symbol list' implies the intended use case (multiple symbols in one call), and 'per-symbol error isolation' implies a benefit over single-symbol calls. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives such as tv_preopen_symbol_snapshot for single symbols or avanza_tv_preopen_portfolio_bundle.

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