Validate alert message bytes and JSON template structure before publishing, catching placeholder or formatting errors without sending a TradingView request.
Validate exact alert-message bytes and JSON template structure without substituting TradingView placeholders or sending a request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| message_format | No | text |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, so safety is covered; the description adds two genuinely useful behaviors (no placeholder substitution, no network request). However, it does not say what a failed validation produces (exceptions vs. an error list), which matters for a validation tool with no output schema.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the object of validation, with no filler. Slightly dense jargon ('exact alert-message bytes') but no wasted words.
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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the agent still lacks the outcome semantics (what counts as valid, what is returned on failure) and the meaning of the format enum. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and it does not: it never mentions that message_format controls whether JSON template structure is checked, nor any constraints on message (32KB limit, placeholder syntax). The enum parameter is left entirely to the 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 (validate) and a specific resource (alert-message bytes and JSON template structure), and distinguishes itself from alert_create/alert_prepare by noting it does not send a request. It does not name the neighboring alert_* validation/prepare siblings directly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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?
Usage is implied by 'without ... sending a request' — a pre-flight check — but it never states when to choose this over alert_prepare, alert_verify, or alert_create. An agent must infer the position in the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.