Add a TradingView indicator

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about using the official dialog and exact name matching, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., modifying chart state) or any prerequisites, but the annotations already cover the safety profile partially.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and context. It contains no fluff and every word adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it could benefit from mentioning that the indicator is added to the currently active chart or specifying any limitations (e.g., only works with certain chart types). The lack of output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it could clarify the effect on the chart state.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'exact built-in or user-visible indicator by name', which clarifies the 'name' parameter's semantics. However, it does not provide details on name format, case sensitivity, or how to find valid names, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: using the official Supercharts indicator dialog to add an exact built-in or user-visible indicator by name. It specifies the verb 'add' and the resource 'indicator', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like chart_add_indicator by mentioning the official dialog and exact name matching.

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?

The description implies usage context (adding indicators via the official dialog) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like chart_add_indicator. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools for similar tasks.

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