screener

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this by stating 'Running a screen is a read: nothing is created, edited or saved.' It also adds useful context about the IDX-specific metric catalogue and notes that the `catalogue` payload is large. No contradiction with 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by read-only behavior and mode pointers. It is about five sentences and includes a slightly promotional TradingView comparison that does not directly aid invocation, but the rest of the content earns its place.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core modes: list, run, `catalogue`, and `presets`, and describes the return concept as 'matching stocks with their metric values.' It does not detail pagination, `limit` semantics, or combined-mode behavior, but the schema fills parameter details and annotations cover safety.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds a usage pattern connecting `template_id` and `type`, and mentions that omitting `template_id` lists screens, but this largely mirrors the schema text rather than adding new semantic meaning.

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 identifies the tool as Stockbit's stock screener and states two concrete operations: listing saved screens and running one to get matching stocks with metric values. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like `scan` or `watchlist`, so it falls just short of a top score.

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 gives explicit calling patterns: no arguments to list saved screens; pass `template_id` and matching `type` to run one; use `catalogue` to see what can be screened on; use `presets` for built-in screens. It lacks direct when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools, but the mode-based guidance is clear and actionable.

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