Lists active TradingView alerts so AI clients and CLI users can inspect running alert conditions and manage them.
List active alerts
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": "alert_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that only active alerts are returned, but does not mention response format, pagination, or lack of side effects. The read-only nature is inferable from 'List' but not explicitly stated.
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 clear, front-loaded sentence. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.
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 zero-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool. However, it does not describe what is returned, how active status is determined, or any limits, leaving some ambiguity for a tool that could return a structured list.
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 has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing missing in parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List active alerts'. It clearly distinguishes this from its alert siblings (alert_create, alert_delete) by indicating a read-only listing operation rather than creation or deletion.
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?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the intended usage is strongly implied by the verb and resource. No sibling tool performs a similar list operation, so the risk of confusion is low.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.