list_alerts

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.