get_indicator_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that cosmetic plots are excluded by default, that plot names come from the indicator's own style titles, and that long-history requests require plot_titles for readability. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the schema, though it does not describe return formatting or explicitly confirm read-only behavior.

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 four sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds relevant operational context: style titles, cosmetic exclusions, the prerequisite get_chart_context, and the plot_titles condition with rationale.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key invocation needs: how to discover indicators, how to narrow plots, and when plot_titles is required. The schema handles parameter defaults and constraints. A brief statement of the return shape would make it fully complete, but nothing critical for actually calling the tool is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds some context, such as plot titles coming from style titles and the default exclusion of cosmetic plots, but mostly reinforces what the schema already states, e.g. the above-500 plot_titles requirement.

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: 'Get recent plot values of indicators (studies) on a TradingView chart', with concrete examples like signal levels and oscillator readings. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools such as get_indicator_graphics or get_indicator_tables by scoping to plot values, and it further narrows scope by noting cosmetic plots are excluded by default.

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 explicit pre-requisite guidance: 'Use get_chart_context first to see which indicators exist' and explains when to narrow with plot_titles, including the condition that plot_titles is required above 500 bars. It does not explicitly name alternative value-adjacent tools or say when not to use it, but the context provided is clear and actionable.

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