scan_watchlist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only analysis operation ('scans', 'calculates'), but does not disclose potential behaviors such as rate limits, data sources, or whether any state changes occur. It adds some context by mentioning the specific outputs but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Scans') and includes essential details (what is scanned, what is calculated, what is returned). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values. The description covers the core purpose and outputs, but omits potential constraints (e.g., max number of symbols, definition of 'consensus score' or 'regime'). With the output schema available, this is mostly 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 100%, so the parameters (symbols, interval) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does mention 'list of stock tickers' which aligns with the symbols parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Scans'), a specific resource ('a list of stock tickers'), and the outputs ('calculates consensus score & regime', 'returns a ranked verdict table'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market_analysis or get_technical_indicators, even without naming alternatives.

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 scanning multiple tickers to get a consensus verdict, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it is offered.

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