tv_scrape_symbol_full

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 mentions the output is 'LLM-friendly JSON' and lists payload contents, but it does not disclose whether authentication is required, whether it makes live network calls, rate-limit implications, failure behavior, or data freshness. The 'scrape' verb hints at external fetching but not the consequences.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The main verb and resource appear immediately, followed by a parenthetical detail list. The phrase 'LLM-friendly JSON' is slightly vague, but overall the structure is clean and efficient.

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, no annotations, and no explanation of parameters or usage context. The description gives a high-level summary of the payload but omits the operational details an agent needs to correctly invoke the tool and interpret results, especially given the large sibling family that overlaps in purpose.

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 says nothing about the three parameters: symbol, market, or exchange. It does not explain the required symbol format, the meaning of market defaults, or how exchange interacts with market. The agent must infer all parameter semantics from bare schema names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and names the resource ('TradingView symbol payload'), enumerating its components: scanner analytics, technical labels, and symbol profile metadata. This differentiates it from the sibling tv_scrape_symbol_analytics, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 about when to use this tool versus the many related siblings such as tv_scrape_symbol_analytics, tv_auth_symbol_full, or tv_preopen_symbol_snapshot. The word 'full' implies a broader fetch, but the description never states a selection criterion or when not to use it.

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