RiskModels Rankings Screen

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond them: end-of-day data refreshed after each US market close, a $0.25 per-call price, and what gets returned (the ranked rows passing the filters). It stops short of describing pagination or auth, but adds real value over the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the when-to-use clause, then the sibling exclusion, then return/freshness/cost details. Dense but every sentence carries information; there is no redundant repetition of the title or name.

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 exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does explain that it returns the ranked rows that pass the filters, plus freshness and pricing. For an eight-parameter screening tool this is largely complete, though row shape and pagination semantics remain implicit.

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 schema already documents all eight parameters, making the baseline 3. The description only conceptually groups the filters ('percentile, decile and sector filters') and cross-references the metric/cohort/window definitions used by riskmodels_get_rankings; it adds little syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb+resource: the names in the universe ranked highest or lowest on one metric with optional filters. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling riskmodels_get_rankings ('Not for one stock's rank'), so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use ('Use when you want the names in the universe that rank highest or lowest'), names the condition selecting the alternative sibling, and identifies the endpoint (POST /rankings/screen). No exclusions are left to inference.

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