screen_by_fundamentals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool is slow and fetches data per stock, which is useful. However, it fails to describe the return format, pagination, or any potential side effects. For a screening tool with no annotations, more detail is needed.

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: three sentences plus an example. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The example is illustrative. No unnecessary information is present. Could be slightly more structured by grouping parameters.

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 has 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description provides a moderate level of completeness. It explains what the tool does, gives a usage example, and warns about performance. However, it lacks explanation of the output, default behavior, and differentiation from similar sibling tools.

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%, so the description compensates by listing the fundamental metrics (PE, PB, market cap, dividend yield, ROE) and providing an example with specific parameter names. However, it does not explain the meaning of default values (e.g., 0 meaning no filter), nor does it detail the range or format of each parameter. It adds value but not comprehensively.

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 by fundamental metrics (PE, PB, market cap, dividend yield, ROE) using Yahoo Finance. It is not a tautology and provides a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'screen_stocks' or 'run_preset_screen' which may have overlapping functionality.

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 includes a note about performance ('slower as it fetches data per stock') and a suggestion ('works best with sector filter'), which provides some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any prerequisites or exclusions.

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