screener_sentiment

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 return structure and input requirement. However, it lacks details on the meaning of the score, error handling, rate limits, or any destructive implications (none expected). The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return structure, and requirement.

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 nested input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential inputs and outputs but lacks explanation of the score scale, pagination behavior, or how to differentiate from similar screener tools. It is minimally adequate.

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 already has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description reinforces that market or region is required and lists return fields, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'screen', the resource 'sentiment across tickers', and the scope 'by market or region'. It distinguishes from sibling screener tools (e.g., screener_news) by focusing on sentiment. The return fields are listed.

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?

It provides a clear requirement ('Either market or region is required') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like news_sentiment_by_ticker or other screener tools. The context is implied by the name but not elaborated.

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