TradingView-only: futures watchlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about data freshness, refresh cadence, entitlement/authentication requirements implied by 'TradingView-only', or failure behavior. The single behavioral fact given - that results arrive in a 'TRADINGVIEW'-labelled envelope, which is already covered by the output schema - is low-value on its own.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the resource name, with no filler prose. The 'Returns:' line is largely redundant given that an output schema exists, which keeps it from a top score.

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?

A zero-argument tool with a rich output schema needs little description, so the terse form is not fatal. Still, an agent cannot tell what 'levels' contains, how fresh the watchlist is, or why the TradingView source matters, which is the minimum context this tool should supply.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap here.

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 phrase 'Curated futures watchlist with levels' identifies the resource and hints at content ('levels'), but uses no verb and gives no scope detail, so the agent must infer that it is a zero-argument fetch. It does not contrast itself with close siblings such as futures_market_overview or futures_top_movers, leaving the agent to guess how the watchlist differs from those overviews.

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?

'(TradingView-only)' is the only conditional signal, and it functions as a data-source label rather than a when-to-use rule. Nothing says when to pick this over futures_top_movers or futures_market_overview, nor whether a symbol argument exists elsewhere for narrower lookups.

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