tv_create_alert

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: the clone is created paused by default, the armed window when overrides are applied, the auto-delete on retarget failure, and the fact that alerts fire real webhooks placing live orders. It also notes the path was verified live on defanged throwaway clones. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone don't provide.

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 dense and information-rich, front-loading the core purpose and mechanism. Every sentence earns its place, covering the clone rationale, paused default, armed window, failure cleanup, return value, and verification. It is longer than typical but justified by the complexity and risk profile of the tool.

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 complexity, the 100% schema coverage, and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return shape, the failure mode, the safety window, the verification status, and the real-world consequence of firing webhooks. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and understand the risks.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds meaning for key parameters like symbol, resolution, message, and web_hook, explaining how they behave (e.g., resolution applied to alert AND every condition, empty string removes webhook). However, it doesn't add much beyond the schema for parameters like layout, expect_layout, or active, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: create a new alert by cloning an existing one, with explicit overrides. It clearly distinguishes this from other alert tools by explaining the clone-based mechanism and why it must be clone-based. The description also names the sibling tv_resume_alerts for the separate resume step.

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 explains when to use this tool: when creating an alert that must carry live study plots and pineId, because /create_alert rejects hand-built payloads. It also states that resuming is a separate explicit tv_resume_alerts call, and mentions the armed window risk. This gives clear context for when to use it vs alternatives.

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