TradingView OpenCode Agent

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

data_get_ohlcv

Retrieve historical OHLCV bar data for any TradingView symbol and timeframe. Customize start/end timestamps or bar count (max 500).

Instructions

Get historical OHLCV bars

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "data_get_ohlcv"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	End timestamp (ms)
`from`	No	Start timestamp (ms)
`count`	No	Max bars (max 500)
`symbol`	Yes	TradingView symbol
`timeframe`	No	Timeframe (1m, 5m, 1h, etc.)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist to declare safety or behavior. The description does not disclose important traits such as data range limits, rate limits, or authentication needs. It merely restates the schema's 'count' limit without additional context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very brief at 4 words, but it effectively conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no additional explanation. The description fails to explain critical details like how 'from' and 'to' timestamps work, the output format (expected as OHLCV bars), or the meaning of 'count' (max 500 bars). This leaves the agent underinformed for a complex data retrieval tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with all parameters having descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get historical OHLCV bars' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'historical OHLCV bars'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'data_get_study_values' which fetch other data types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools are different enough to imply usage, explicit instructions are missing.

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