Ranking de Market Scan

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive. Beyond that, the description discloses a paid-access requirement and the crucial caveat that the ranked universe is smaller than the broader asset set, so fewer than `limit` items may return and that is not an error. This is real behavioral value not present in 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?

Three tightly packed sentences: purpose first, then the access prerequisite, then the result-count caveat. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is 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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys what comes back (a ranked asset list) and the count caveat, plus the access requirement. It stops short of describing the shape/fields of each ranked asset, which is the one remaining gap for a no-output-schema tool.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the 'limit as a ceiling' behavior and the default strategy. The description largely restates the universe caveat rather than adding new parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource: scans the market and returns assets ranked by a strategy. The scope (curated Quant Plus universe) makes it clearly distinct from the signal/insight siblings, but it never explicitly names or contrasts those alternatives.

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?

It gives a gating prerequisite (the Market Scan pass is required and sold separately) but never states when to choose this over get_signal, batch_signals, or get_insight. Usage is implied by the ranking scope rather than spelled out.

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