tv_list_studies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description reinforces with 'Read-only'. It adds the specific scoping to 'the active TradingView chart' – useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose behavior like what happens with no studies or whether the result is sorted, so it adds only modest behavioral detail beyond what annotations already 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It states the action, the resource, the output detail, and the read-only nature – all in under 20 words. Every element earns its place.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema and fully described parameters, the description is largely complete. It covers the core purpose and the active-chart scope. The only minor gap is not stating the return format (e.g., array of objects with id and name), but this is easily inferred for a 'list' operation and not critical.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning both parameters (layout and expect_layout) are fully documented in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, so it does not go beyond the baseline for a tool whose schema already covers the parameters.

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 (List), a clear resource (indicators/strategies on the active TradingView chart), and the output detail (study ids). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like tv_list_layouts and tv_get_study_values, making the tool's purpose unambiguous without requiring schema inspection.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: when you need to enumerate indicators/strategies on the active chart. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is so distinct that an agent can infer the right context. The read-only note also signals it is safe for reconnaissance.

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