screener

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool is public, requires no key, is IP rate-limited, takes no arguments, and returns a specific JSON structure, giving a transparent behavioral profile.

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 compact, front-loading the core purpose and usage, then adding technical details. Every sentence is informative with 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?

For a zero-argument tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: purpose, usage, public nature, rate limiting, return structure, and watchlist composition. It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

Although the schema has zero parameters, the description explicitly states it takes no arguments and that the watchlist is fixed server-side, adding meaningful semantic clarity beyond the empty 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 identifies the tool as a public options screener over a curated watchlist and specifies the return format (per-symbol row with spot price, sentiment, headline analytics). It explicitly distinguishes this from authenticated analytics tools by framing it as a discovery-first step.

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?

It states to use the screener as the fastest way to discover interesting symbols before drilling into authenticated analytics tools, and clarifies it is public with no key needed but IP rate-limited. This provides clear when-to-use context and differentiates it from siblings.

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