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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the null-is-signal semantics where no_thesis=true and no_orderbook=true are positive selectors, defines indicator formulas like CRI, and notes rate limiting. This adds significant transparency, though it does not cover output format or pagination behavior.

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 dense but well-organized: it front-loads the purpose, then defines key indicators, explains the null-is-signal behavior, and ends with rate-limit details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse 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?

Despite the rich conceptual description, it omits details about how filters combine (e.g., AND vs OR), default sort/order behavior, and the structure of the returned market list. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these gaps reduce completeness for a tool with 20 parameters.

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 75%, and the description enriches this by defining the indicators IY, CRI, OR, EE, LAS, and τ. It also provides practical heuristics such as 'Try 200 for long-tail' for iy_min and 'Try 0.05' for las_max, helping the agent choose effective values beyond what the schema states.

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 identifies the tool as an indicator-based market screener and specifies its role as the middle layer between raw price scan and LLM thesis edges. It also enumerates the indicators used and explicitly states that no LLM round-trip is required for the screening pass, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_trade_ideas or scan_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 provides clear context on when to use the tool—after a raw price scan and before LLM-based thesis generation—and mentions free-tier rate limits. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or state explicit exclusions, leaving some inference required.

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