yahoo_finance_screener

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

No annotations provided, and description does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, data freshness, or results scope. Only states it runs a screener, leaving behavioral traits unclear.

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?

Two sentences, but first sentence is a noun phrase lacking a verb. Second sentence is clear. Could be more direct and front-loaded.

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 and description does not explain result format or list valid screener ids. With 5 parameters, more context is needed for proper tool use.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. Description adds only an example for 'id', not extra meaning for other parameters like count or offset.

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?

Description clearly states the tool runs predefined Yahoo Finance screeners, with specific examples like day_gainers or most_actives. This distinguishes it from the sibling yahoo_finance_screener_custom which handles custom screeners.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like yahoo_finance_screener_custom. Missing prerequisites or context for choosing a screener.

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