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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the action (verify session validity) and the output (account and alert counts), implying a non-destructive read operation. It could be more explicit about side effects or failure behavior, but the tool is simple and low-risk, so the description is reasonably transparent.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately provide a practical usage directive. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and when to use it. It mentions the report contents ('account and alert counts'), giving a basic understanding of the return value. It could specify the exact structure or behavior on invalid sessions, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is sufficiently 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to describe, and the input schema is empty. It offers no additional semantics beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('TradingView session'), and also mentions it reports account and alert counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage alerts or resolve symbols, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Run this first if anything returns an authorization error.' This gives a clear, actionable trigger context, effectively guiding the agent on when to invoke this tool over others.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about automatic symbol resolution and reading default inputs, which explains why the alert works. However, it omits details about side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements, so it is informative but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences that front-load the main purpose and include key behavioral details without any fluff. Every sentence contributes value, and it maintains a clear structure.

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 description provides a solid overview of the tool's behavior and relies on the rich schema for parameter details. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., an alert ID or confirmation), which is important for a creation tool especially since there is no output schema. This gap prevents a higher score.

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?

The schema already covers all 10 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by highlighting the automatic symbol resolution (relating to 'symbol'), reading default inputs (relating to 'inputs'), and the optional webhook URL (relating to 'web_hook'), which goes beyond 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create a new TradingView alert') and the resource ('from one of your saved Pine strategies'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_alerts and delete_alerts by focusing on creation, and the extra details about resolving symbols and reading default inputs clarify the specific scope.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you want to create an alert from a saved strategy) and references list_saved_strategies in the schema, which is a helpful alternative for finding strategy names. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other sibling tools like list_alerts for viewing existing alerts.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deletion is permanent and irreversible, and that changing an alert requires delete+recreate. While it does not mention potential bulk deletion when using filters (e.g., name/status/symbol without IDs), the core destructive behavior is clearly communicated.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and permanence, the second explains the edit limitation, and the third offers an alternative. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 description covers the core destructive nature and provides an alternative, but it omits a critical safety context: if no alert_ids are given, the tool will delete all alerts matching the provided filters, which could be many. For a destructive tool, this is a significant gap. However, the rest of the context (permanence, no edit endpoint) is present, making it above the bare minimum.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter detail. It does not explain how multiple filters combine (AND/OR) or the risk of omitting alert_ids, but the schema's existing descriptions are sufficient to make the parameters understandable. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and resource ('TradingView alerts'), clearly distinguishing it from other alert-related tools. It also implicitly contrasts with pause_alerts, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context for when to use deletion and explicitly names an alternative: 'To stop an alert temporarily, use pause_alerts instead.' It also explains the delete+recreate pattern due to no edit endpoint. However, it does not mention when not to use it beyond the temporary case, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the content of the output ('what triggered, and when') indicating a read-only operation, but does not disclose aspects like pagination, sorting, or any side effects. For a simple list tool this is adequate but 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key output content. It does not waste words or include irrelevant details.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns. It lacks explicit mention of whether any filtering or ordering is applied, but given the minimal complexity this is a minor gap.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'limit' parameter ('Default 25.'), so the schema provides the necessary semantics. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Show the firing history for your alerts: what triggered, and when.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_alerts (which likely lists alert configurations) and create_strategy_alert (which creates). The purpose 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 description implies when to use this tool by specifying it returns firing history (what triggered and when), which differentiates it from listing alerts themselves. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, lacking the direct comparison seen in higher-scoring examples.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of revealing behavior. It clearly indicates this is a read-only listing operation on the authenticated account and specifies what fields are returned. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but for a simple list tool the description gives adequate behavioral grounding.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output fields; the second adds workflow context and filtering capabilities. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, return fields, authentication context, and its key relationship to sibling tools. Since there is no output schema, it adequately describes the main return values. Minor gaps include lack of pagination details and the expanded output when include_details is true, though the schema covers that parameter.

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 75%, and the description reinforces filtering by symbol, name, or status, which matches the schema properties. It does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, and include_details is only documented in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair, 'List TradingView alerts', and enumerates the returned fields (status, symbol, timeframe, alert_id). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'Start here: every other tool targets alerts by the alert_id this returns.'

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 explicitly frames this tool as the entry point for alert workflows: 'Start here: every other tool targets alerts by the alert_id this returns.' It also states that filtering by symbol, name, or status is supported, giving clear guidance on when to use it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only listing operation and mentions the flagging output, but it doesn't explicitly address auth requirements, side effects, or limitations. The description adds some context beyond the raw tool name but is not richly transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose. Every sentence contributes value: the first states what the tool does, the second provides the key use case. 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?

Given the simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core purpose, use case, and relationship to create_strategy_alert. It lacks a detailed return format explanation, but for a straightforward listing tool, the 'flagging which are strategies' hint is sufficient for an agent to infer expected output.

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 100% with a clear description for the single optional parameter 'strategies_only' ('Exclude indicators and libraries. Default true.'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool lists Pine scripts saved on the TradingView account and flags which are strategies. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_alerts, and it explicitly ties to create_strategy_alert.

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 clear context: use this to find the exact name to pass to create_strategy_alert, and notes that only strategies can drive a strategy alert. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but it provides strong situational guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the non-destructive nature ('stay on your account but stop firing') and reversibility ('can be reactivated'). It does not mention edge cases like pausing an already paused alert or behavior with empty filters, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, no fluff. Every word adds value by defining scope, behavior, and targeting options.

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?

Despite the description explaining the effect, it fails to address a critical ambiguity: since all parameters are optional, calling with no filters could pause all alerts. There is no warning about this, and no mention of return values or error behavior. This is a unsafe gap for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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%, and the schema already explains each parameter, including alert_ids being the 'most precise way'. The description's mention of targeting modes adds little beyond a summary of the schema, so it earns the baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Pause') and resource ('TradingView alerts'), clearly distinct from siblings like delete_alerts and resume_alerts. It also explains the key side effect (alerts stay but stop firing), which removes ambiguity.

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 provides two targeting modes ('by alert_ids, or by symbol / name / status filter') and mentions resume_alerts as the reactivation path. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use (e.g., for permanent removal use delete_alerts), so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the purpose and the fact that the output is required for alerts, but it does not disclose error behavior, return structure, or whether the operation is read-only. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no extraneous words. Each sentence adds value: one defines the function, the other its practical use.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, input format, and typical use case. It gives some indication of the output (canonical symbol + currency-id), though it could be more explicit about the return structure and error handling.

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?

The schema only provides an example value ('BYBIT:BTCUSDT.P'), but the description adds the semantic format 'EXCHANGE:TICKER' and explains that the symbol will be resolved to a canonical form plus currency-id. This goes beyond the schema and clarifies the parameter's role.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('EXCHANGE:TICKER' into canonical symbol plus currency-id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on alerts, auth, and strategies, making it clear this is a symbol-validation/conversion tool.

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 provides a concrete use case: 'Useful for checking a symbol exists before creating an alert.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that alerts must be 'previously paused' but does not explain behavior on active alerts, handling of no matches, potential side effects, or return values. This is a reasonable disclosure for the core operation but lacks edge-case detail.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and then specifies targeting options. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or 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 description is sufficiently complete for a moderate-complexity tool: it covers the core action and the flexible targeting mechanisms. It omits edge-case behaviors (e.g., what happens if no alerts match) and return details, but does not have an output schema to justify more. Slight room for improvement, but not critical.

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 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds a useful grouping ('by alert_ids, or by symbol / name / status filter') but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Resume (restart) previously paused TradingView alerts') and resource, making it unambiguous. It also differentiates from sibling tools like pause_alerts and delete_alerts by explicitly focusing on resuming paused alerts and offering multiple targeting modes.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to restart previously paused alerts), and implies it is the opposite of pause_alerts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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