TradingView-only: futures overview

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the data source is TradingView-only and that results come wrapped in a TRADINGVIEW-labelled envelope, but it says nothing about ordering direction (descending by rank?), pagination, or what happens when limit exceeds available contracts. For a read-only overview the risk is low, so this is adequate rather than rich.

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 with the one-line purpose, then Args and Returns sections in a compact block; nothing is padded. Minor overlap with the title'sthe 'TradingView-only' phrasing appears twice, but that redundancy reinforces an important constraint rather than wasting space.

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 the return values need not be spelled out, and the description still flags the wrapper key usefully. Missing pieces are routing guidance relative to sibling tools and any note on defaults or pagination limits, which leaves the agent to guess at scope when the futures list is large.

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% and no enums are declared in the schema, so the explicit enumeration of category values (all, equity_index, energy, metals, agriculture, rates, forex, crypto_futures) and exchanges values (us, global) adds substantial meaning that is available nowhere else. The limit parameter only gets 'Rows to return', which essentially repeats the schema title and omits the default of 30.

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 resource and ordering: futures contracts ranked by volume, with a source qualifier (TradingView-only). This is enough to separate it from futures_top_movers and futures_watchlist, though it never explicitly names those siblings to sharpen the distinction.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions or alternatives, even though several siblings (futures_top_movers, futures_watchlist, market_indices) overlap in domain. The agent must infer that this is the 'broad futures list' tool from the name alone.

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