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 determinism. The description adds valuable context about the return format ('organized by category with descriptions') and file size considerations for follow-up actions, which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions exist.

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 in three sentences: purpose statement, return format, and usage guidelines. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, and the guidance is front-loaded after the core purpose.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with comprehensive annotations (read-only, idempotent, closed-world) and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how results are organized, and when to use alternatives, covering all necessary context given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's behavior and usage context.

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 ('List all available Pine Script v6 documentation files') and resource ('with descriptions'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns files organized by category, unlike get_doc (single file), list_sections (sections within a file), or search_docs (search functionality).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use alternatives: 'For small files use get_doc(path). For large files... use list_sections(path) then get_section(path, header).' This clearly differentiates usage scenarios based on file size and structure, directly addressing sibling tools.

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