tickory_list_relay_sources

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions selection criteria (what is omitted) but fails to state that the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The behavioral coverage is incomplete.

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 with no wasted words. First sentence states action and object, second sentence adds constraints. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and an output schema. The description covers the core filtering logic but omits behavioral traits like read-only nature. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds some context for include_routes ('direct-route summaries') but does not mention include_inactive. Since coverage is high, baseline is 3, but the description adds minimal extra value.

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 tool lists TradingView relay sources, specifies optional inclusion of direct-route summaries, and explicitly notes what is omitted (non-TradingView sources and legacy scan-backed routes). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling list tools.

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 implies when to use (to list TradingView relay sources) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or comparisons to alternatives like tickory_list_scans or tickory_list_symbols. It provides no context about prerequisites or conditions.

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