TradingView-only: Bollinger squeeze scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data-source restriction, threshold-based qualification, row limiting, and envelope label, but does not explicitly establish read-only behavior or address candidate ordering, data freshness, access requirements, or failure behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the short Args and Returns sections are easy to scan. There is essentially no filler, and the parameter notes add value rather than merely repeating titles and types.

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?

Defaults and parameter notes make a basic invocation straightforward, while the output schema reduces the need for detailed return documentation. However, the scan universe, valid exchange and timeframe examples, result ordering, and operational constraints remain unclear.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, all four parameters receive useful explanations; bbw_threshold in particular gains a clear qualification rule. Accepted TradingView venue and interval formats, along with the units or normalization of band width, remain undocumented.

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 identifies a scan for Bollinger-band squeeze candidates and restricts it to TradingView, distinguishing its signal from siblings such as crypto_volume_breakout. It does not specify the scanned asset universe or explicitly position the tool against related crypto analysis tools.

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 TradingView-only constraint and squeeze-candidate purpose imply when the tool is useful. There is no explicit when-not guidance, alternative sibling, or advice on choosing a timeframe or squeeze threshold.

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