tv_trading_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by revealing what state is read (broker id, account, positions, orders, capability flags, gate) and by noting that passing a symbol triggers extra tradability/price checks. 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the optional symbol behavior is stated in a compact second sentence. Every phrase adds information.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description covers the main returned data and the key optional behavior. It does not detail error semantics around expect_layout or the meaning of 'gate', but the parameter schema already explains expect_layout's refusal behavior, so the definition is reasonably complete.

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. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the meaningful consequence of the symbol parameter: it also checks tradability, qty step/min, and chart price. This adds non-obvious parameter semantics that help an agent decide whether to pass a symbol.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource ('the broker connected inside TradingView'), then enumerates the exact fields returned. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling trading-action tools like tv_place_order or tv_close_position.

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 on when to use the tool: to inspect broker/account state, positions, orders, and tradability. It also explains the optional symbol behavior and the read-only nature. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is distinct enough among the siblings.

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