watchlist_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it declares SIDE EFFECTS as None (Read-only) and a LIMITATIONS prerequisite that the watchlist must have symbols loaded. It stops short of describing error behavior or empty-watchlist handling.

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?

Front-loads the purpose then uses labeled WHEN TO USE / SIDE EFFECTS / LIMITATIONS blocks, so an agent can scan it quickly. Slightly verbose in restating the returned fields, but every section earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, read-only safety, and the prerequisite. It could note failure/empty behavior, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document (baseline 4). The description instead documents the output fields (last price, absolute and percentage change), which adds useful meaning beyond the empty 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (all financial symbols from current TradingView watchlist) and even enumerates the returned data (last price, absolute/percentage change). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling watchlist_add, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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 'WHEN TO USE' line gives a concrete usage context (scanning watchlists, monitoring the asset universe for opportunities), which is more than implied guidance. However, it offers no alternative tool or when-not-to-use exclusion to route against siblings like symbol_info or quote_get.

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