Analyze an official TradingView symbol

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the behavior is mutable, non-idempotent, but not destructive. The description adds that the browser closes unless keepBrowserOpen is true, and that it archives data, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like creating files (archive) or impact on chart state when keepBrowserOpen is true. The description provides some value but could be richer.

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 two sentences, tightly front-loaded with the primary purpose and then the key behavioral note about browser closing. Every sentence adds value, no fluff or repetition. Excellent conciseness.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and moderate annotation coverage, the description is fairly complete. It explains the end-to-end workflow, mentions the archive function, deterministic analysis, and metadata, and the browser behavior. It doesn't detail what the 'technical analysis' includes or the exact return format, but the absence of an output schema raises the burden slightly. It covers most critical context for an agent to decide use.

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 86%, so the description's parameter explanations largely cover the fields. The tool description itself only mentions the keepBrowserOpen parameter (by name) and hints at bars/interval via OHLCV and analysis, but does not add much beyond what the schema provides. Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description adds a small increment by explaining the intended use of includeHistoryBars indirectly (conserving context) and the archive file, which are not explicit in schema descriptions. Overall, the description complements the schema adequately.

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 fetches and archives official TradingView OHLCV, loads it into the local chart, and returns deterministic technical analysis, with a specific verb (analyze) and resource (official TradingView symbol). It is distinct from siblings like tradingview_get_history (which likely only fetches history) and chart_analyze (which might analyze existing chart data).

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 positions this as a 'Recommended one-call workflow' but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives explicitly. It implies a one-stop analysis workflow, but lacks exclusions like 'for raw data only, use tradingview_get_history' or 'for existing chart analysis, use chart_analyze'. Provides some context but no direct sibling differentiation.

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