screen_by_flow

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses important behavioral traits: it performs a server-side join of ranking and flow data to save tokens and time, and notes that larger top_n values slow performance (500≈20~50 seconds). This is comprehensive for a read-only screening tool.

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 well-structured with a title, brief summary, example usage, and an Args section. While it is somewhat lengthy, it is organized and front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 6 parameters all explained in detail, an output schema exists (providing return structure), and no nested objects, the description covers input semantics and behavioral context (performance, server-side join). It is complete enough for an AI agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter in Korean: top_n (default 100, max 500, slower when larger), market (KOSPI/KOSDAQ/ALL), foreign_days (recent N days all net buy by foreigners, 0=no apply), inst_days (similar), exclude_etf (default True), sort_by (trade_value/volume). This adds all necessary meaning beyond the schema's property names.

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 the tool screens stocks based on trading volume/value and foreign/institutional buying streaks. It specifies it's dedicated to screening and joins ranking with flow data server-side, distinguishing it from siblings like get_flow or get_volume_ranking.

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 example queries like '거래대금 상위 중 외국인·기관 동반 매수' and '이틀 연속 수급 들어온 종목', clearly indicating when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, which would elevate it to a 5.

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