TradingView-only: volume breakout scan

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 discloses only that results come back in an envelope labelled TRADINGVIEW and that the source is TradingView; it says nothing about how the thresholds combine (AND vs OR), whether zero results are possible, rate limits, or data freshness.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a tidy Args/Returns block; nothing is padded. The one-liners are terse to the point of under-specification rather than verbose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, but for a 5-parameter screening tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description leaves the two most consequential inputs (exchange and timeframe) essentially undefined. An agent would have to guess valid values.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must supply the meaning. It gives one-line glosses ('Minimum relative volume', 'Minimum absolute % change') that add a little over the bare titles, but omits default values, accepted exchange names, valid timeframe strings (no enums exist), and what 'relative volume' is measured against.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a scanner for volume and price breakouts, and pins the data source as TradingView-only. That distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings like crypto_bollinger_scan and crypto_top_movers, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 only usage signal is the '(TradingView-only)' tag, which is a source constraint rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no guidance on when this beats crypto_bollinger_scan, crypto_multi_timeframe, or crypto_top_movers, and no stated preconditions.

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