Sets a TradingView chart type by numeric ID, verifies the readback, and stops if the expected layout ID does not match.
Set TradingView chart type numeric ID and verify readback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_id | Yes | Exact Chrome tab target ID from browser_list_tabs. Required for changes. | |
| chart_type | Yes | ||
| expected_layout_id | Yes | 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 this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the operation verifies readback, but it does not explain failure behavior, permissions, or what the verification actually checks.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the verification behavior without unnecessary repetition.
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?
The tool is a mutation with a layout guard and no output schema, so the description should clarify verification results and chart-type mapping. It mentions readback verification but does not explain what is returned or how to choose the numeric chart type, leaving important context to inference.
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 moderate at 67%; target_id and expected_layout_id are documented in the schema, while chart_type has only a 0-30 integer constraint. The description adds that chart_type is a numeric ID, but it does not explain which numeric ID corresponds to which chart type, leaving a meaningful semantic gap for the key parameter.
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?
The description names a specific verb and resource: setting the TradingView chart type by numeric ID, plus a readback verification. This distinguishes it from nearby chart tools such as chart_set_symbol and chart_set_timeframe, though it does not explicitly reference those siblings.
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?
It states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implied usage is that the chart type should be changed and verified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.