tv_ta_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that ratings are TradingView's precomputed Recommend.* fields and explaining the mapping to STRONG_BUY..STRONG_SELL.

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 first sentence states what the tool returns, the second explains the rating source and mapping, and the third gives a clear usage caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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?

With a complete input schema, an output schema present, and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description adds the remaining essential context: data provenance, rating mapping, and the caution that this is not a trade signal. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to use the tool 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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a meaningful description, including examples and auto-prefix behavior for symbols. The tool description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool produces a technical-analysis summary per symbol, naming the specific components: overall/MA/oscillator ratings plus RSI and close. It also explains the rating values are TradingView Recommend.* fields mapped to STRONG_BUY..STRONG_SELL, which distinguishes this from sibling tools like tv_data_get_bars and tv_screener_run.

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 explicitly says to use it for a quick bias read and not as a trade signal, giving clear context and an exclusion. It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the usage context is still well-defined.

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