pinescript-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it reads a resource by URI, handles both static and templated URIs, returns content as a string, and base64-encodes binary content. This covers the core operational traits, though it doesn't mention error handling, permissions, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific usage notes and return behavior. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage nuances, and behavioral aspects adequately. However, it could benefit from more explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools to enhance contextual understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'uri' parameter clearly documented. The description adds marginal value by explaining the semantics of URI usage for static vs. templated resources, but it doesn't provide additional details beyond what the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('a resource by its URI'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_doc', 'get_section', or 'list_resources', which might also involve reading resources. The description is specific about the action but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 implied usage guidance by specifying 'For static resources, provide the exact URI. For templated resources, provide the URI with template parameters filled in.' This gives context on how to use the tool based on resource type, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_doc' or 'list_resources', nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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