yahoo_finance_screener_custom

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It only says 'runs a query' without disclosing whether the tool mutates data, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The term 'constrained' is vague and not elaborated.

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 very short (one sentence) but lacks essential details, making it under-specified. Front-loading is minimal; it does not structure information effectively for an agent.

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 the complexity (nested object parameter, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to construct the request, what the response contains, or how this tool fits into the broader set of Yahoo Finance tools.

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 only parameter 'request' is an object with a schema description 'Custom screener request'. The tool description merely echoes this, adding no detail about the required fields, format, or constraints beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 states it runs a 'constrained Yahoo Finance custom screener query' using a specific JSON shape, which gives a general sense of purpose. However, it does not clarify how this differs from the sibling tool 'yahoo_finance_screener' nor explain what 'constrained' means, reducing clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'yahoo_finance_screener' or 'yahoo_finance_screeners'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria.

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