tv_screener_run

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

Annotations already declare read-only and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the scanner is unauthenticated, US-equity quotes are 15-minute delayed, forex/crypto are near-realtime, and timeframe-scoped fields use a suffix like 'RSI|15'. This helps set expectations without contradicting annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core operation comes first, followed by concrete use cases, then important data-quality caveats. Each sentence contributes distinct value with no redundancy.

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 tool with zero required parameters, full schema coverage, clear annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the key operational nuances: when to use it, field flexibility, data delay caveats, and field-name formatting. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds beyond the schema by explaining the timeframe-suffix convention for fields (e.g., 'RSI|15') and signaling the wide field space (~3000 fields), which helps the agent construct valid columns and filters.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a TradingView screener query'. It further differentiates from siblings by scoping to ranking/filtering instruments, oversold pairs, and volume leaders, which clearly separates it from symbol search, bar retrieval, and TA summary tools.

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 description provides an explicit 'Use for' list covering ranking, filtering, identifying oversold pairs, and volume leaders. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the use cases are clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings.

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