pinescript-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this by specifying the analysis methods (ANTLR4, style patterns, undeclared identifiers) and authorization requirements (HTTP with free local STDIO), enhancing transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on analysis, authorization, args, and returns. Most sentences add value, though the authorization note could be more concise. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), and the presence of an output schema (indicated by 'Returns' section), the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and output sufficiently without needing to explain return values in detail.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the 'script' parameter as 'The Pine Script code to lint'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format or constraints. With one parameter and no schema descriptions, a baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description provides basic semantics.

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 with specific verbs ('lint', 'checking') and resources ('Pine Script'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'validate_function' or 'edit_and_lint' by focusing on static analysis for syntax and style issues rather than validation or editing.

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 for linting Pine Script code, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_function' or 'edit_and_lint'. It mentions authorization requirements, which provides some context, but lacks clear guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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