Retrieve a read-only list of TradingView price alerts with symbol, condition, active state, and last fire time. Audit your alerts without modifying them.
List the user's TradingView price alerts (read-only): symbol, condition, active state, last fire time. This tool does not create, modify, restart, or delete alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is read-only and does not create, modify, restart, or delete alerts, which is essential safety-relevant behavior for an agent. It does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or return format details, but for a zero-parameter listing tool the key behavioral trait is adequately disclosed.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, key output fields are listed, and the exclusion of mutation behavior is stated explicitly in the second sentence. Every phrase 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 simple, zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies what is listed, what fields are returned, and what side effects the tool does not have. Nothing an agent needs to safely invoke this 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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema contains no properties, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description provides context about what the returned list contains, which is useful semantic information even though it relates to output rather than 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 clearly states the operation ('List'), the specific resource ('the user's TradingView price alerts'), and the scope of returned data (symbol, condition, active state, last fire time). It also explicitly differentiates itself from mutation operations by stating it does not create, modify, restart, or delete alerts.
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 establishes this as a read-only listing tool and explicitly excludes mutation operations, which helps an agent know when not to use it. However, it does not name any alternative tool for creating or modifying alerts, such as the sibling create_analysis_alerts, so the routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.