Move a paused TradingView Bar Replay forward by 1-100 bars, reading back each step. Use for incremental chart analysis and controlled replay progression.
Advance an already started, paused TradingView Bar Replay by 1-100 bars. Each step is read back and must advance the replay cursor. Autoplay and Replay Trading orders are not supported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | No | Bars to advance. Default: 1 |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important behavioral context beyond the name: the replay cursor must advance with each step, and autoplay/Replay Trading orders are unsupported. It could mention failure modes, but the core behavior is 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 three short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each sentence provides a distinct piece of necessary guidance: what the tool does, its state prerequisite, and its limitations.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: state prerequisite, step range, and unsupported modes. It does not specify error behavior or return value shape, but the information provided is sufficient for correct use in most cases.
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%, and the schema fully documents the 'steps' parameter including min, max, default, and a descriptive label. The description adds little beyond restating 'by 1-100 bars', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Advance') and resource ('TradingView Bar Replay'), and further clarifies the exact operation (advance by 1-100 bars) and the required state (already started, paused). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_chart_replay, stop_chart_replay, and get_replay_status.
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 states the prerequisite condition ('already started, paused') and explicitly lists unsupported modes ('Autoplay and Replay Trading orders are not supported'). It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the conditions make the intended use case clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.