tv_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying exactly what data is retrieved (symbol, timeframe, login, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Read') and resource, followed by a concise list of returned data. No filler words or 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?

Given no output schema and no parameters, the description provides a good overview of what the tool returns. It covers major areas (chart state, UI elements, diagnostics). However, it lacks details on data types or structure, and could mention if any fields are optional or conditional. Still, it is reasonably complete for a simple status 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 schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately lists the output fields instead.

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 reads the current TradingView chart state and enumerates the specific data points returned (symbol, timeframe, login, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('TradingView chart state'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a general state snapshot rather than a focused read like tv_read_chart.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions under which it should not be used. The description implies it's for getting an overview, but does not differentiate use cases (e.g., when to use tv_status vs tv_read_chart).

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