tv_list_alerts

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by declaring 'Read-only.' It goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing the 200-row cap, ordering (newest first), panel_pos semantics, per-field truncation limits, and the collapsing of large input/plotOffsets maps.

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?

Despite its length, every sentence carries operational information: purpose, read-only flag, ordering, row limit, full field list, positional-reference caution, and truncation caveats. The critical warnings about position and tv_get_alert fallback appear near the end, and there is no filler.

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 carries the full burden of describing the return value, and it does so extensively: all 15 fields, sort order, maximum rows, and truncation behavior. It also covers the important edge case of large study input maps and directs the agent to the right tool for full details. The only minor omission is how to handle >200 alerts (filtering vs. pagination), but that is partially addressed by the symbol and active_only filters in the schema.

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?

All four parameters (layout, symbol, active_only, expect_layout) are 100% described in the input schema. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior beyond the schema; it introduces the output fields and filtering implications but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or valid values, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the account's TradingView alerts with their machine-readable firing condition.' It also labels the operation 'Read-only,' and later contrasts itself with 'tv_get_alert' when pointing to the full-detail fallback, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling alert-manipulation tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to prefer tv_get_alert ('use tv_get_alert for the full detail') for truncated fields. It also warns 'Refer to an alert by name + symbol, never by position alone,' which is essential context for using list output in later alert operations. These are concrete when/when-not signals.

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