screen_us_breakout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data sources (Yahoo screeners), pre-filter, and strategy (7 breakout-specific). However, it does not mention any limitations, rate limits, or mutation behavior; the tool appears read-only but this is not confirmed.

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 clear purpose statement, technical details, and an Args section. It is moderately long but avoids fluff. Every sentence adds value, though some minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, seed logic, and parameter meanings. It references a sibling for comparison, but does not elaborate on output fields (acceptable since output schema exists).

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description lists all 10 parameters with concise explanations (e.g., 'symbols: None uses Yahoo', 'exclude_if_up_pct: exclude stocks up more than this % today'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 filters US stocks about to break out, explicitly differentiating itself from the sibling 'screen_us_momentum' by stating it is the opposite concept. It provides specific verbs and resource identification.

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 specifies when to use this tool (for accumulation/breakout stocks) and contrasts it with 'screen_us_momentum' for momentum stocks. It also explains default seed behavior, but does not explicitly state when not to use it beyond this comparison.

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