egx_stock_screener

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'production' and 'actionable setups', but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like data freshness, rate limits, or what the score means. Bare minimum beyond annotations.

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 plus a clear, bullet-like Args list. Front-loaded with purpose. Every part earns its place; no fluff.

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?

Covers purpose and parameters well, but lacks description of return format (what does the ranking return?) and no output schema. For a read-only screening tool, this is nearly sufficient, but missing output details slightly reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully: it lists each parameter with allowed values (timeframe: 5m,15m,1h,4h,1D,1W,1M; min_score: 0-100; index_filter: EGX30, EGX70, etc.; limit: max 50) and defaults, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's types.

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 it's a 'stock ranking engine for EGX' that 'finds strong stocks with actionable setups,' which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'stock_screener' (generic) and 'egx_market_overview' (overview).

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 provides parameter hints but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'use for screening stocks by score, timeframe, or index; for market overview use egx_market_overview'). No exclusions or prerequisites.

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