Reads the visible time range on a TradingView chart and returns start and end timestamps in Unix seconds.
Read visible time range in Unix seconds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_id | No | Exact Chrome tab target ID from browser_list_tabs. Required for changes. | |
| expected_layout_id | No | Expected saved-layout ID. A mismatch stops the operation before writing. |
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=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that values are Unix seconds, but says nothing about what the range covers (main chart vs pane), whether it changes during replay, or how it behaves if a chart is not ready.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 no output schema, the description should convey the return shape, and "Unix seconds" only partially does so — an agent cannot tell whether it returns a start/end pair, an object, or a duration. For a simple two-optional-param read tool this is adequate but not complete.
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%, so both optional parameters (target_id, expected_layout_id) are already documented and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no clarification, and notably does not resolve the oddity that target_id is marked "Required for changes" on a read-only tool.
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 and resource ("Read visible time range") plus the unit (Unix seconds), which is enough to distinguish it from the write counterpart chart_set_visible_range. It does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces or contrast with chart_get_zoom/chart_get_state, so it falls short of a 5.
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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone whether to use this versus chart_get_zoom, chart_get_state, or chart_scroll_to_date.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.