pinescript-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return format ('formatted text list of function names') and clarifying that empty namespace returns all functions grouped by namespace, which helps the agent understand the output structure.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidelines, parameter explanation, and return value description in four concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter), rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains purpose, usage, parameters, and return format well. A minor gap is lack of explicit mention about pagination or result limits, but this is reasonable for a simple lookup tool.

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 carries full burden for parameter documentation. It clearly explains the 'namespace' parameter's purpose ('Filter by namespace'), provides examples ('ta', 'strategy', 'request'), and specifies the default behavior ('Empty string returns all functions grouped by namespace'), adding significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Get valid Pine Script v6 functions') and resource ('functions'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning validate_function() as an alternative for checking single functions. It provides precise scope about Pine Script version v6 and optional namespace filtering.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use before writing Pine Script to see which functions exist') and when not to use it ('For checking a single function name, use validate_function() instead'). It provides clear alternatives and context for usage.

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