tv_scrape_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at 'public' data access, but discloses nothing about scraping behavior — rate limits, blocking risk, data freshness, whether an existing auth session is required or ignored, or what the returned 'barometer' structure looks like. For a scrape-style tool, these are material traits an agent should know before invoking it.

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 14-word sentence with zero filler. The verb and primary resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning. This is efficient writing, even though the brevity leaves content gaps scored elsewhere.

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?

Moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations) places a heavy burden on the description, which it does not meet. It names the data category returned but omits output format, parameter interaction, and selection context relative to the auth-based sibling. An agent has enough to attempt a call but not enough to reliably interpret results or choose correctly among siblings.

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%, and the description compensates for none of the three parameters. 'symbol' is inferable from the tool name, but 'market' (default 'america') and 'exchange' (default 'NASDAQ') are completely unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether exchange overrides market, how the two interact, or what valid values exist. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 concrete resource ('TradingView symbol analytics and technical recommendation barometers'), and a source ('public scanner data'). The phrase 'public scanner data' loosely distinguishes it from the auth-based sibling tv_auth_symbol_analytics, though it does not explicitly name any 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 given on when to use this tool versus the closely related tv_auth_symbol_analytics or tv_scrape_symbol_full. The phrase 'public scanner data' mildly implies an unauthenticated path, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'use X instead when...' guidance. An agent must infer the selection criteria 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.