Scan Watchlist

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the computation ('consensus score & regime') and the output form ('ranked verdict table'), which goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and ends with the output artifact. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 full schema coverage, clear annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the input and the qualitative output. It stops short of detailing the exact fields in the verdict table or explaining the 'regime' concept, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (symbols and interval), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any meaningful parameter-level details beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 what the tool does: it scans a list of tickers, calculates a consensus score and regime, and returns a ranked verdict table. The verb 'scans' is specific and the resource is defined, making it distinct from siblings like get_market_analysis or compare_symbols.

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 is for processing multiple tickers (a watchlist), which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the 'list of stock tickers' wording differentiates it from single-symbol tools.

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