run_preset_screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the tool as a read-only screening operation with no side effects, but does not mention pagination, limits, or return format. Since an output schema exists, the agent can infer structure, but the description adds limited behavioral context beyond listing presets.

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, listing presets efficiently, and includes an example call. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no nested outputs), the description is fully complete. It covers all presets, their meanings, and provides an example, enabling correct invocation.

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 only parameter 'preset' has no enum values in the schema, but the description exhaustively lists all valid presets with explanations, fully compensating for the lack of schema enumeration. This gives the agent complete guidance.

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 runs a pre-built screener strategy and lists all preset options with their meanings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like screen_by_fundamentals or screen_stocks, which are more customizable.

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 explicit presets and an example, but does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., for more complex screening). It gives clear guidance on using the presets but lacks when-not-to-use advice.

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