tv_export_data

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses real behavioral traits: TradingView Desktop refuses its own export, the export is composed from loaded series, there is a 500-bar cap, studies without series are listed under `skipped`, and column names follow a specific pattern. No contradiction with 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: core action first, then limitations, skipped-study behavior, column naming, and return fields. It is long only because the tool has many behavioral nuances that matter for correct invocation.

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?

With no output schema, the description explicitly lists what is returned: symbol, resolution, bar count, first/last bar, columns, and file path. Combined with fully documented input schema parameters and edge-case disclosures, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds integration context: write=false means inline rows, studies can be selected by name, count is capped at 500, and the export is joined on bar time. It does not restate each schema field but enriches how the parameters work together.

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: 'export the active chart as one table' with OHLCV bars plus study plots joined on bar time. This scope clearly differentiates it from sibling data-access tools like tv_get_bars and tv_get_study_values without needing to name them.

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?

It gives clear context: read-only, at most 500 bars, only what the chart has scrolled into memory, and how skipped studies behave. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the caveats make the intended usage understandable.

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