Screen Stock Factors

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

Description adds context beyond annotations by specifying read-only nature, return of factors and warnings, and no verdicts/confidence labels. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but description enriches behavior. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence, 150 characters, front-loads key information. No wasted words.

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?

With 25 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return format, error handling, or how to use the many parameters beyond high-level intent. Agent would lack critical context for 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for 25 parameters. Description only vaguely hints at parameters (e.g., 'optional account sizing' maps to includeAccountContext, 'Alpha Vantage fundamentals/news' maps to fundamentalProvider/NewsProvider) but does not explain most parameters or their semantics.

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?

Description clearly states it's a read-only stock factor screener with Saxo quotes, chart context, optional account sizing, and optional Alpha Vantage fundamentals/news. It distinguishes from siblings like saxo_screen_market (market screener) and saxo_screen_option_strategy_factors (options screener) by focusing on stock factors and specifying no verdicts.

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?

Implies usage for screening stock factors with optional data sources, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., saxo_screen_market) or provide when-not scenarios.

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