global-equities-screener-mcp

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds scope details (ASX 200 + small caps) but no further behavioral traits.

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?

Concise, front-loaded purpose, and structured Args section. Efficient but could be slightly more compact.

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?

Covers basics: purpose, parameters. Lacks output format or return value hints, which would be helpful given no output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining criteria as 'filter dict (sector, market cap, etc.)' and limit as 'max rows to return', adding clarity beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Screen' and resource 'Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) — ASX 200 + small-caps incl. mining juniors'. Distinguishes from sibling tools by market and inclusion scope.

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?

Implied usage for screening Australian equities with broad coverage, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operations and an open schema. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond the screening action, which is consistent with annotations. It does not contradict but also does not enhance 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?

The description is very concise with two sentences plus a structured args section. It front-loads the purpose and lists parameters efficiently without unnecessary words.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., stock list format). For a screening tool, the return behavior is partially implied but not fully specified, leaving some context incomplete for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining 'criteria' as a filter dict with sector, market cap, dividend yield examples, and 'limit' as max rows. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though more specific field examples would improve clarity.

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 screens Brazil's B3 exchange, including specific indices like Bovespa Index and Small Caps. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the Brazilian market, ensuring an agent can select this tool for Brazilian 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool name and sibling context imply it is for Brazilian stocks, there is no mention of when not to use it or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world hints. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond mentioning the exchanges' sectors, but no details on pagination, rate limits, or result format.

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 very concise: two lines with front-loaded purpose and efficient parameter explanation. No wasted words.

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 simple screening tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter usage. Missing return format, but acceptable given the open-world hint.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful parameter semantics: criteria is a filter dict with examples (sector, market cap), limit is max rows. This compensates for the schema gap.

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 screens the Toronto Stock Exchange, specifically TSX Composite and TSX Venture, distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover other exchanges.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives; it only implies through the exchange name and sibling list. No guidance on when not to use.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly implies a safe read operation. It adds context about the data source (Eastmoney) and explains parameters, but does not detail rate limits or pagination beyond the limit parameter. No contradiction.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear list of arguments. Every sentence is necessary, no wasted words.

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 simple screening tool with three parameters, the description covers the inputs well. However, it does not describe return values or pagination behavior, which could be inferred but is not explicit. Given no output schema and the openWorldHint, slightly more detail would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description bears full burden. It explains all three parameters: sector (optional with examples), market_cap_min (CNY), and limit (max rows, default 50). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type/default definitions.

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 screens Mainland China A-shares via Eastmoney data, distinguishing it from sibling tools targeting other markets. The verb 'screen' combined with market specification and data source provides specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the sibling tool names and the tool's name make it clear that it is for China A-shares. No guidance on when not to use or what prerequisites exist.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond being a screening/filter operation, which is consistent with 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 sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and parameter explanations are brief but sufficient.

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 2-parameter tool with annotations, the description covers both parameters adequately. No output schema exists, so the lack of return value description is acceptable; the tool is straightforward and screening output is implied.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the burden. It explains criteria as a filter dict with examples (sector, market cap) and limit as max rows, adding meaningful interpretation beyond the raw schema.

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 screens the Beijing Stock Exchange (BSE) and identifies it as China's SME board. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from the many sibling tools targeting other exchanges.

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 the target market (BSE SME board), providing context for when to use this tool. However, it does not include explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations, though sibling names imply exchange-specific usage.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, mentioning that it returns rows based on criteria and limit. It does not disclose any additional traits like pagination or rate limits, which would be helpful but are not required given the 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences defining the tool's purpose and a bulleted list of arguments. No fluff; every sentence adds value.

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 simple screening tool with no output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics. It lacks details on output format or error conditions, but the open-world hint suggests the agent can explore. Somewhat complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes 'criteria' as a filter dict with examples (sector, market cap, P/E, etc.) and 'limit' as max rows. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more detailed on acceptable values.

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 'Screen ChiNext (Shenzhen growth board) — China's Nasdaq-equivalent for growth companies.' It uses a specific verb (Screen) and resource (ChiNext), distinguishing it from sibling tools that screen other markets.

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 usage for ChiNext stocks through its title and the context of sibling tools for other markets. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it screens IPOs, but does not disclose additional behaviors like idempotency, rate limits, or error handling. Minimal 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?

The description is concise: one sentence for purpose and a brief Args section. Every sentence earns its place, no fluff.

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's simplicity (2 optional params) and no output schema, the description covers functionality but omits the return format or pagination behavior. Adequate but could describe output structure.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains 'criteria' with an example and 'limit' as max rows, but lacks comprehensive documentation of filter keys or value formats. The example partially compensates.

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 screens China's STAR Market for hard-tech and biotech IPOs, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from 26 sibling tools targeting other markets.

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 usage by naming the specific market, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., for broader Chinese equities, use screen_china_a_shares) or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description aligns without contradicting. It adds no further behavioral context beyond the screening action, but this is sufficient given the annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with purpose, and structured with clear Args section. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 simple screening tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameter roles. It could detail return format, but sibling similarity and annotations keep it functional.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains criteria as a filter dict with examples (sector, market cap, P/E) and limit as max rows, adding meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema.

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 screens Chinese ADRs listed on US exchanges, with specific examples (Alibaba, JD, PDD, NIO), distinguishing it from sibling tools for other markets.

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 context is clear: use for Chinese ADRs on US exchanges. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance is provided, though sibling names imply the domain.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. Description adds that it screens but lacks details on data freshness, pagination, or output shape.

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?

Extremely concise: one-line purpose followed by two argument descriptions, no wasted words.

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?

Lacks information about return format, pagination, or typical use cases; for a screening tool with no output schema, more context is needed.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description explains 'criteria' as a filter dict with examples (sector, market cap, P/E) and 'limit' as max rows, providing useful context beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool screens specific German indices (DAX 40, MDAX, SDAX, TecDAX) on Xetra/Deutsche Börse, distinguishing it from sibling tools for other markets.

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?

Implies usage for German market screening via the name and description, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. siblings or when not to use.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's mention of parameters adds some context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, each serving a clear purpose. No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.

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 description lacks details about the output format or return values. Given no output schema, the description should specify what the tool returns (e.g., list of stocks). It is adequate but incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the 'criteria' parameter as a filter dict with examples (industry, market cap, P/E, dividend yield) and 'limit' as max rows. This adds significant meaning beyond the empty schema, though details are still vague.

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 screens Hong Kong-listed stocks via HKEX, specifying the indices (Hang Seng, Mainboard, GEM). The verb 'Screen' and the resource 'stocks' are specific, and the context distinguishes it from siblings which cover other markets.

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 tool's purpose is clear from the name and context, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide usage exclusions. However, the sibling tools are differentiated by market, making it obvious.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true; description adds no further behavioral traits beyond the 'Screen' verb.

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?

Description is short and front-loaded with purpose, but includes an 'Args:' section that could be more concise.

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?

No output schema, and description does not mention return format; but tool is simple with only 2 parameters, so missing info is minor.

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?

Description adds meaning to the 'criteria' parameter by listing example filter fields (sector, market cap, P/E), compensating for 0% schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states it screens India's NSE and mentions specific indices (Nifty 50, Nifty Bank), but does not differentiate from sibling screen_* 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?

Provides clear context for use (screening NSE), but no guidance on when not to use or alternatives among siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., filtering capability) but does not disclose side effects or return behavior beyond what annotations imply.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence, with no superfluous text. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple screening tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, target indices, and parameter semantics. Lack of output documentation is acceptable given no output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'criteria' as a filter dict with examples (sector, market cap) and 'limit' as max rows, adding meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 screens the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) and specifies sub-indices (LQ45, IDX30, full Jakarta board), distinguishing it from sibling country-specific screeners.

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 usage for Indonesian stocks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tool names provide context by naming other countries.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's value is limited. It adds that the tool filters by criteria and returns rows, but does not disclose specifics like rate limits, pagination, or default behavior. The open world hint already covers variability, so no contradiction.

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 concise with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and structured with an Args section. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and how to use the parameters. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the screening scope and inputs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains 'criteria' as a filter dict with examples (sector, market cap, P/B, dividend yield etc.) and 'limit' as max rows. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 screens the Tokyo Stock Exchange and lists specific indices and market segments (Nikkei 225, TOPIX, Prime/Standard/Growth). The tool name and description uniquely identify the target exchange, distinguishing it from sibling tools for other markets.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling tools are listed, there is no comparative advice or mention of prerequisites or limitations. The context implies it is for screening Japan TSE, but lacks depth in usage context.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds minimal behavioral context beyond screening capability. No disclosure of pagination or data freshness.

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 plus parameter list, concise and front-loaded. Could add more structure but is efficient for the information provided.

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?

Covers purpose and parameters adequately for a simple tool. No output schema, so return format is not required. Minimal but complete given context.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description fully explains both parameters: limit as max rows, criteria as filter dict with example fields (industry, market cap, P/E). Adds essential meaning.

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 screens the KOSPI exchange with examples of major companies. The name and sibling tools make the target market unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, but the sibling tools are other exchanges, implying usage for Korean stocks. Lacks conditions like when not to use.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe, read-only nature is clear. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that, so it meets expectations without excess.

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 very short: a summary line followed by a bullet-style Args list. It is front-loaded and to the point, losing a point only for a slightly informal 'etc.'

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 simple schema (2 optional params, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks details on the output format or the exact structure of the criteria dict, which could be beneficial for a screening tool.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining 'criteria: filter dict (sector, market cap, etc.)' and 'limit: max rows to return.' This adds meaning beyond the schema, though 'etc.' leaves some ambiguity.

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 'Screen Bursa Malaysia — FBM KLCI components and Main Market.' This specifies the market and scope, and with sibling tools named by region, it is easy to distinguish.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The market name implies context, but the description does not discuss alternatives or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond mentioning the scope (IPC components and broader universe). No contradictions.

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 very concise with a clear front-loaded purpose and two parameter descriptions. Every sentence is informative without waste.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and parameter usage adequately for a simple screening tool with no output schema. Could be slightly more specific about criteria keys, but 'sector, market cap, etc.' is sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description provides brief but clear parameter explanations: 'criteria: filter dict (sector, market cap, etc.)' and 'limit: max rows to return'. This adds value beyond the raw schema types.

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 states 'Screen Bolsa Mexicana de Valores (BMV) — IPC components and broader Mexican universe', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which target different countries.

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 this tool is for Mexican equities, and sibling names make it obvious when to use other country screens. However, no explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to repeat these. The description adds minor context about the scope (PSEi and broader market) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits.

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 very concise: one sentence followed by a brief Args list. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's basic use, though it could benefit from mentioning return format or typical use 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the criteria parameter as a filter dict and the limit parameter as max rows. However, the explanation is vague (e.g., 'sector, market cap, etc.') and lacks specifics about allowed keys or values.

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 screens the Philippine Stock Exchange, specifically PSEi components and broader market. This distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting other countries.

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 implicitly provides context by specifying the market, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, given the sibling tools are all country-specific, the context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool screens specific sectors (banks, petrochems) and defines limit as 'max rows to return,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior details like error handling, return format, or how the criteria works beyond a vague list.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose and one line for args. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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's complexity (2 params, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description provides the market context and parameter meaning but lacks details on criteria structure, return data, or pagination. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to make assumptions.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It describes 'criteria' as a filter dict with examples (sector, market cap, dividend yield) and 'limit' as max rows. This provides basic semantics but lacks precision on allowed keys, formats, or defaults. Competently covers the gap but incompletely.

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 screens Saudi Arabia's Tadawul exchange and mentions specific components (TASI, Aramco, banks, petrochems), providing a clear verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the market name, which is sufficient but not highlighted.

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 usage for Saudi Tadawul screening via the market name, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. other screen tools or provide any exclusion criteria. No guidance on prerequisites or alternatives beyond the implicit market distinction.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the universe (STI and REITs) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, auth needs, or side effects). With annotations covering safety and openness, the description provides minimal extra transparency, warranting a 3.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states purpose and universe, the second lists parameters. Every word earns its place; no fluff. Front-loaded and efficient, earning a 5.

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 many siblings, the description sufficiently covers the tool's scope (exchange and universe) and parameters. It lacks details on return format or pagination, but the limit parameter partially addresses that. Adequate for a screening tool with read-only annotations, so 4.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains criteria as a filter dict with examples (sector, market cap, dividend yield) and limit as max rows. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though 'etc.' is vague and no format details are given. Baseline 3 would be for high schema coverage; here description adds value, so 4.

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 screens the Singapore Exchange (SGX) specifically for STI components and SE-Asia REIT universe. This provides a specific verb ('Screen'), a clear resource ('SGX'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that target other exchanges, earning a 5.

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 usage for SGX screening, and sibling tool names (e.g., screen_australia_asx) clearly differentiate by exchange. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is given, so it gets a 4.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate it. It adds no additional behavioral context beyond the schema (e.g., auth or rate limits), which is acceptable given 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?

The description is very concise, front-loading the purpose and then listing parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations present, the description is sufficient. It covers purpose and parameter usage, though it could mention return format if known.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning: criteria is a filter dict with examples (sector, market cap) and limit is max rows. This provides useful context beyond the raw schema.

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 screens the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and lists specific segments (Top 40, mining majors, financials). This distinguishes it from sibling tools for other exchanges.

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?

Usage guidance is implied by the exchange name, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to siblings. The agent can infer but no explicit alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's burden is lower. The description adds that it screens stocks with criteria and limit, which is consistent. No behavioral details beyond that (e.g., rate limits, pagination), but the safety profile is already clear from 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The parameter explanations are concise. However, the format mixes a one-line summary with a Python docstring style for Args, which is acceptable but could be more streamlined.

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 large number of sibling screen tools, this description clearly identifies the target market (TWSE) and provides essential parameter information. It is complete enough for an agent to understand that this tool screens Taiwan stocks with basic filters. No output schema, but the return type is implied.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'limit' as 'max rows to return' and 'criteria' as a 'filter dict (industry, market cap, P/E, etc.)'. This adds basic meaning, but the examples are limited and do not specify exact keys or value formats. Adequate but not thorough.

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 screens the Taiwan Stock Exchange (TWSE) with a focus on semiconductor heavyweights. It uses a specific verb 'screen' and identifies the resource (TWSE), distinguishing it from sibling tools targeting other markets. However, the mention of 'semiconductors heavyweights' may over-specify the scope, as the criteria parameter allows arbitrary filtering.

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 the tool is for screening Taiwan TWSE stocks, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings (e.g., other market screeners). It lacks when-not scenarios or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer that the choice is based on market name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, query-like operation. The description adds the market scope and parameter hints but does not elaborate on return format, pagination, or error behavior. No contradictions.

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 concise, with a front-loaded purpose and two clear lines for parameters. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or redundancy.

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 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and annotations indicating read-only open-world, the description covers the tool's purpose and parameter semantics sufficiently. It lacks explicit output format or behavior, but that is minor for a screening tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the criteria parameter as 'filter dict (sector, market cap, dividend yield, etc.)' and limit as 'max rows to return'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 screens the Thailand Stock Exchange (SET), specifying the verb 'Screen' and the resource 'Thailand Stock Exchange'. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the country and market indices (SET50, SET100, full universe).

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 tool's name and description imply it should be used for Thai equities, and the sibling list shows country-specific screens. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor alternatives beyond the sibling naming convention.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the argument description, such as pagination, rate limits, or data freshness. For a read-only screening tool, this is minimal added value.

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?

Description is short and uses a bullet-like format for arguments. Every sentence serves a purpose, but it could be more structured (e.g., separate behavior from parameters). Still, no fluff.

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 complexity (2 params, no output schema) and many sibling tools, the description explains parameters but not return format or typical usage patterns. Adequate for a simple screener but not fully complete.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the JSON schema. The description compensates by explaining the 'criteria' parameter as a filter dict with examples (sector, market cap, dividend yield) and 'limit' as max rows. This provides actionable meaning for the agent.

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 screens Borsa Istanbul, mentioning BIST 100, BIST 30, and the full Turkish universe. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools (other country screeners) by specifying the market.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other market screeners) or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the meaning of the 'limit' parameter but no further behavioral traits like rate limits or result details. Consistent with 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?

The description is extremely concise: one line for purpose and a bullet-style Args section. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with market info.

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, the description omits return format, pagination, or field details. It covers the input clearly but leaves the agent guessing about output structure, which is a gap for a screening tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by listing example filter keys (sector, market cap, dividend yield) and defining 'limit' as max rows. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 screens London Stock Exchange markets (FTSE 100, FTSE 250, AIM), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like screen_us_finviz or screen_japan_tse.

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?

While no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, the market names in the description and sibling tool names make it obvious this is for UK equities. Implicitly clear but lacks formal exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about using Finviz and 100+ filters but does not disclose potential rate limits, data freshness, or response format. No contradiction with 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?

The description is structured with a clear first sentence and an Args section. It provides necessary examples without excessive verbosity. Minor room for improvement by front-loading key constraints.

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, the description lacks details on the return format (e.g., tickers, data fields) and does not mention error handling or rate limits. For a tool with flexible inputs and external dependency, this is a notable gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates thoroughly by explaining the criteria parameter accepts Finviz filter codes, a screenerUrl, or human-readable keys with examples, and limit defaults to 50. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 screens US-listed stocks on NYSE/NASDAQ/AMEX via Finviz, differentiating it from sibling tools for other markets. The verb 'screen' and specific market listing provide high purpose clarity.

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 implicitly guides usage by specifying US markets among many siblings. It explains the criteria parameter formats (codes, screenerUrl, human-readable) but lacks explicit when-not or alternative suggestions, limiting full guidance.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it screens stocks.

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: one stating purpose and scope, one listing parameters with concise descriptions. Zero waste.

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?

Adequate for a simple screening tool with two parameters. Could mention output format but not essential given no output schema.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description provides meaningful explanations: 'criteria: filter dict (sector, market cap, etc.)' and 'limit: max rows to return', adding value beyond type definitions.

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 screens Vietnam's HOSE exchange, including VN30 and full board, distinguishing it from sibling tools for other countries.

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?

Implied usage is for screening Vietnam stocks, but no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings or any exclusions or prerequisites.

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