Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TradingView MCP

TradingView MCP

by madiver
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

symbol_search

Search for trading symbols by name or keyword, optionally filtering by asset type such as stock, futures, crypto, or forex, to find the right instrument for charting, alerts, or analysis.

Instructions

Search for symbols by name or keyword

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "symbol_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoFilter by type (e.g., "stock", "futures", "crypto", "forex")
queryYesSearch query (e.g., "AAPL", "crude oil", "ES")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It only says the tool searches by name or keyword, but does not mention return format, result count, no-match behavior, or whether it accepts partial matches. These gaps leave the agent guessing about the tool's runtime behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single clear, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or filler. It communicates the core action and target in an efficient form.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate for a basic invocation. However, it is incomplete for a no-output-schema tool because it does not describe what a successful search returns or how to distinguish this search from symbol_info.

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%, so the properties 'query' and 'type' are already documented with examples. The description's phrase 'by name or keyword' loosely reinforces 'query' but adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('symbols') and states the search basis ('by name or keyword'). It is distinct enough from sibling 'symbol_info' (which implies retrieving details) but does not explicitly call out that differentiation.

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 given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'symbol_info' or 'tv_discover'. The description implies a search use case but does not state exclusions or conditions for choosing a sibling tool.

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