tv_scrape_heatmap

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the tool relies on 'free scanner data,' implying no paid auth, but says nothing about data freshness, rate limits, endpoint stability (notable given 'scrape' in the name), or whether results are real-time, delayed, or snapshot-based.

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?

One tightly worded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource are front-loaded and 'using free scanner data' earns its place as a method qualifier. The brevity causes under-specification, but that deficiency is more appropriately penalized in other dimensions.

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 11 optional parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence is insufficient. The agent is left without valid value sets for market or sort_by, with no sense of the response shape, and with no information about data characteristics such as real-time vs. delayed — all of which matter for a market-movers tool.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate but barely does. The phrase '(top movers)' loosely frames the default sort_by='change' and the heatmap concept, yet no parameter's valid values are hinted at — market, sector, sort_by, exchanges, and the numeric filters remain entirely unexplained.

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 ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('TradingView market heatmap rows'), and clarifies the row semantics with '(top movers)' while identifying the data source as 'free scanner data.' It is implicitly distinguished from symbol-level siblings like tv_scrape_symbol_full and tv_preopen_batch_snapshot by being market-wide, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes avanza_market_movers (also a 'market movers' tool) and several TradingView symbol-level scrape tools, yet the description never states when the heatmap view is preferable or which use cases it is not suited for, leaving routing to inference from the tool name alone.

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