tv_discover

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Report' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, but it does not clarify side effects, response format, or whether this performs a live network scan. It is adequate but minimal.

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, grammatically complete sentence delivers the tool's purpose with no filler. The key verb and resource appear immediately, and every word earns its place.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, the description communicates enough to know what the call will return: available paths and their HTTP methods. It lacks detail about output structure or edge cases, but those are less critical for a simple introspection tool.

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 is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level meaning, and no parameter documentation gaps exist.

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 ('Report') and a specific resource ('known TradingView API paths') and states what is output (availability and methods). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like tv_health_check, which implies status checking rather than endpoint discovery.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use tv_discover versus alternatives such as tv_health_check or get_status. The description does not mention prerequisites, expected scenarios, or any exclusions.

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