tickory_list_relay_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the filtering behavior (only TradingView sources, no legacy routes) and the optional inclusion of route summaries. More details on side effects or authorization would improve transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no superfluous words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 the tool has an output schema, return values need no explanation. The description covers the filtering criteria and optional features. It lacks mention of pagination or ordering, but for a simple list tool, this is acceptable.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds a bit of context for include_routes ('direct-route summaries') but does not elaborate on include_inactive beyond the schema. As baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, this 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 clearly states it lists TradingView relay sources, with optional direct-route summaries. It explicitly excludes non-TradingView sources and legacy scan-backed routes, differentiating it from sibling tools like tickory_list_relay_events and tickory_list_scans.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (listing TradingView relay sources) and what is omitted, implying when not to use it (other sources). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those cases.

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