Get comprehensive TradingView data for one date

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

Beyond the annotations (openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds essential behavioral context: it navigates the TradingView Supercharts UI and exports data, aggregates intraday bars based on interval, includes prior/next bars, and explicitly returns no_session_bar for non-trading days instead of substituting a date. This significantly enriches understanding of side effects and edge cases.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with a clear recommendation. The first sentence is concise, the second is a long list of return values but still efficient, and the third adds a key edge-case behavior. There is no fluff, but the long middle sentence could be streamlined. Overall, it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description needs to explain the return content, which it does comprehensively (session/intraday aggregate, prior/next bars, price changes, gaps, ranges, volume, rolling performance, TA). It also covers the non-trading day behavior. It does not discuss limits beyond lookbackBars or error handling beyond no_session_bar, but given the complexity, it is quite complete.

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 coverage is 75% (6 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it mentions interval aggregation but that is already in the schema. With high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate with extra parameter details for the undocumented parameters (layoutId, keepBrowserOpen).

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: one-call retrieval of comprehensive data for a single date, including OHLCV, prior/next bars, price changes, ranges, volume, and TA. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the 'recommended one-call historical-date workflow' and explicitly handling non-trading days with a no_session_bar status.

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 frames itself as the 'recommended one-call historical-date workflow', giving strong contextual guidance for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when multi-day history is needed. This is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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