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 about what happens when no match is found (returns suggestion to use search_docs) and clarifies the exact-match nature of the lookup, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 behavior—all in four concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage boundaries, parameter intent, and failure behavior, leaving no significant gaps for agent 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'query' parameter as 'Exact Pine Script term or known concept keyword' and providing concrete examples. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could specify format constraints more explicitly.

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 as a 'fast lookup for exact Pine Script API terms and known concepts' with specific examples like 'ta.rsi' and 'strategy.entry'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on exact term matching rather than natural language queries or broader documentation functions.

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 this tool ('exact function names and Pine Script vocabulary') and when not to use it ('For natural language questions... use get_doc() or list_sections() + get_section()'). It names specific alternatives and directs to other resources for different use cases.

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