Get an indicator's source code

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It explains that sources are long and that the tool returns working TradingView code, which gives useful context. It doesn't disclose side effects (none expected) or return format details, but for a simple read-only retrieval it is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences that immediately state the purpose, the platform compatibility, and the usage condition. No filler or redundant information.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool, the description completely covers purpose, usage context, and the nature of the returned data ('full, working source code'). No output schema exists, but the return value is clearly implied. No crucial missing information.

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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter 'slug' as 'Indicator slug', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about how to find or format the slug, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 exactly what the tool returns: 'The full, working source code of a Library indicator'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling library_get_indicator by explaining it's kept separate because sources are long, which clears up potential ambiguity.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'call it only when the user wants the code itself.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool and implicitly contrasts it with library_get_indicator for when the user wants indicator metadata instead.

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