egx_stock_screener

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond basic function. It does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects. For a production tool, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence and a bulleted parameter list. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description adequately covers parameters but lacks output description (e.g., what the results look like) and usage context among many similar sibling tools. Given no output schema, more detail on return values would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all 4 parameters: timeframe options, min_score range, index_filter values, and limit max. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema, though could include data types or examples.

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 it is a stock ranking engine for EGX that finds strong stocks with actionable setups. This distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like 'stock_screener' by specifying the EGX market and using the term 'ranking engine'.

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 implies usage for EGX stock screening but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stock_screener' or 'egx_index_analysis'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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