screen_stocks

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Lists available filters and default behaviors (e.g., near 52w high = within 5%), but does not mention limit and index parameters, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with no results. Output schema exists, reducing some need, but missing behavioral details.

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?

Efficient: one intro sentence, bulleted filters, and an example. No redundant content. Slightly long list but well-organized. Could integrate missing parameters succinctly.

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 12 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It explains filters and scope but omits two parameters (index, limit) and any prerequisites or limitations. Example helps, but not fully comprehensive.

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 has 0% description coverage; description compensates by covering 10 of 12 parameters with clear explanations (e.g., near_52w_high meaning within 5%). Adds value beyond schema titles and defaults, but misses index and limit parameters.

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?

Clearly states 'Screen stocks with multiple filters. Works on any NSE index.' Uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like screen_by_fundamentals or run_preset_screen by focusing on multi-filter screening on NSE indices.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Provides an example but does not direct the agent to alternatives for specific use cases (e.g., fundamental screening). Implicit usage from filter list, but lacks exclusions.

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