tradingview_sector_performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about the specific ETFs and daily performance, but doesn't disclose potential limitations (e.g., data delay, frequency of updates) or error conditions. It adds moderate value beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds value and application context. Every word is necessary.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description fully explains what the tool does (returns performance of specified sector ETFs) and why it is useful (sector rotation analysis). It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 description faces no burden to explain them. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not add parameter info, but none is needed.

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 specifies the exact action ('Get performance'), the precise resource ('S&P 500 sector ETFs' with ticker symbols), and the output ('shows which sectors are leading or lagging today'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that cover broad indices or individual stocks.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Essential for sector rotation analysis') and implies it's for daily performance comparison. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like tradingview_market_indices or tradingview_quote, leaving some ambiguity for agents.

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