Volumen inusual (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 adds that results are liquidity-filtered and represent fresh capital entering, which is useful framing, but it omits return shape, ranking logic, or any latency/rate considerations. Adequate, not rich.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the market list follows as supporting scope. Two sentences with no filler, though the long market list is partially redundant with the enum and slightly inflates the length.

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 read-only screener with no output schema, the description conveys what is screened, the markets covered, and the inflow-oriented rationale. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the return structure is left unspecified, which is acceptable given annotations cover safety.

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 67%, a mid-range baseline. The description's market enumeration largely duplicates the schema enum rather than adding format or constraint meaning, and 'limit' carries no description anywhere. The local-currency nuance for min_value_traded lives in the schema, not the description.

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 resource and intent: a TradingView screener surfacing assets with the highest relative volume and sufficient liquidity. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like tradingview_technicals or tradingview_sector_breadth by the 'relative volume / new money entering' framing. No explicit sibling callout, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'dónde está entrando dinero nuevo' implies the use case (spotting inflow-driven momentum), so usage is suggested rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool naming against the many flow/liquidity siblings.

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