scan_best_opportunities

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'best trading opportunities' but does not explain how 'best' is determined, what filtering or ranking logic applies, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 concise at two sentences, but the second sentence ('Returns the best trading opportunities') largely restates the implication of the first sentence, adding minimal value. It is not verbose, but the redundancy prevents a perfect score.

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 tool with eight parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain result ordering, output format, how filters interact, or the meaning of 'best' opportunities. The description is a high-level summary rather than operational documentation, leaving an agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 description mentions the combination of spread, volume, and TA signals, which aligns with several parameters (minSpread, minVolume, signalType, minTAConfidence), but does not explicitly name or explain any of the eight parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only provides a high-level hint and leaves parameter semantics entirely to the schema.

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 a comprehensive market scan combining spread, volume, and TA signals. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_spreads or find_ta_signals which focus on individual signal types, making its purpose transparent.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scan_spreads, analyze_symbol_ta, or find_ta_signals. It only implies broad usage via 'comprehensive market scan' but lacks any context about specific scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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