Amplitud y flujo sectorial intradía (TradingView)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the data source scope (scans all US stocks above the cap threshold) and the computation methodology, but omits cost/latency caveats despite describing an intraday full-market scan.

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 dense sentences with no filler, front-loading the scan scope before the computed metrics. Efficient and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does enumerate the returned per-sector metrics (% al alza, valor negociado, flujo neto), which is helpful. However, it omits data freshness, timeframe granularity, and the role of the one parameter, leaving modest gaps for a market-scan tool.

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 0% for the single min_market_cap parameter. The description references the threshold ('capitalización > 10.000 M'), which maps to the parameter's default, adding partial meaning, but it never indicates the threshold is adjustable or how it affects results.

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 (recorre/calcula) and resource (sector breadth: % al alza, valor negociado, flujo neto intradía) with a clear scope (all US stocks > 10.000M cap). The 'medida bottom-up independiente de los ETFs' phrase implicitly differentiates it from ETF-based sector measures, but no sibling is named 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 description explains what the tool computes but gives no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives. With siblings like get_capital_flows, get_rotation_history, and tradingview_unusual_volume, an agent gets no signal for choosing this over them.

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