Retrieve drawn labels from Pine scripts to analyze or use in charting and trading strategies.
Get drawn labels from Pine scripts
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "data_get_pine_labels"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all | No | Get all labels |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., whether it is read-only, requires chart context, or has side effects). The description carries the full burden but adds no transparency beyond the obvious.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. While concise, it lacks behavioral details that could be included without adding length.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what 'drawn labels' are or how the 'all' parameter affects results, making it insufficient for informed invocation.
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 schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'all' parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get drawn labels from Pine scripts' clearly states the action (get) and resource (drawn labels). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like data_get_pine_lines and data_get_pine_tables by targeting labels specifically.
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?
No explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool. Usage is implied from the purpose, but no context about alternatives or conditions is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.