TradingView MCP

by moeuu

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Add price level

chart_add_level

Add a labeled horizontal price level to a chart, marking support, resistance, stop, or target for technical analysis.

Instructions

Add a labeled horizontal support, resistance, stop, or target level.

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": {
      "price": "<price>",
      "label": "<label>"
    },
    "name": "chart_add_level"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`id`	No
`color`	No	#a78bfa
`label`	Yes
`price`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

While annotations already indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), the description adds that the level is horizontal and labeled, describing the visual result. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects like duplicate levels, whether the chart must be open, or how id affects the operation.

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 13-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and every word adds value. No filler.

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?

The description is adequate for the simple operation of adding a level, but lacks explanation of id and color parameters and does not mention the interaction with chart_remove_level or the current chart state. Given the sibling tools and no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'labeled' (label) and 'horizontal' (price position), but does not explain the id parameter (likely for later removal) or the color parameter. This is incomplete for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Add' and identifies the resource: a labeled horizontal support/resistance/stop/target level. This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like chart_add_zone or chart_add_marker.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly implies the use case: adding a labeled horizontal price level. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give exclusions, but the context is clear. Sibling tools like chart_add_zone and chart_add_marker indicate different shapes, making the usage unambiguous.

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