chartimg_v3_exchange_list

Does 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 does clarify that this is a GET request and a listing operation, implying a non-mutating read, but it does not mention authentication needs, response format, or any usage limits. This is acceptable for a zero-parameter list endpoint but still leaves some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the exact endpoint, giving an agent all the essential information efficiently.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the resource, the operation, and the endpoint. Since the description explicitly states that it returns exchange ids, the agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret the basic result.

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, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on the resource being listed rather than parameter details, which is the correct baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 ('list') and a specific resource ('TradingView exchange ids'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chartimg_v3_exchange_symbols, which handles symbols rather than exchange ids.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as chartimg_v3_exchange_symbols. It simply states the endpoint without explaining the typical workflow context, prerequisites, or cases where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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