Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TradingView OpenCode Agent

TradingView OpenCode Agent

by jadatorin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

draw_shape

Draw customizable shapes like arrows, lines, rectangles, ellipses, or text on TradingView charts using coordinates.

Instructions

Draw a shape on the chart

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": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "points": "<points>"
    },
    "name": "draw_shape"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNoText for label (optional)
typeYesShape type
styleNoVisual style {color, width, dashed}
pointsYesCoordinates [{time, price}]

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether drawing overwrites existing shapes, if there are limits, or any side effects. The description only states the action without context.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks any structure or detail. It earns its place but does nothing to enhance understanding.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (2 required), enums, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return value, effects on the chart, or any constraints.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Draw a shape on the chart' clearly states the tool's action and object, and the name 'draw_shape' distinguishes it from siblings like 'draw_list' and 'draw_remove'. However, it lacks specificity about which shapes are supported beyond what the enum provides.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 (e.g., for batch operations or individual shapes). There are no usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools