smart_volume_scanner

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

Annotations already establish read-only safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations, including the return type (list[dict]) on success and the structured error envelope on any failure. It also documents valid values for rsi_range, which clarifies expected behavior.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, an Args list, and a return/error note. It is concise and every line provides value, though the summary could be more precise about the exact screening criteria. Overall, it is appropriately sized without fluff.

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 tool has 5 optional parameters, all explained in the description. The output schema exists, so return details are sufficiently covered. The description also discloses failure behavior. However, it lacks specifics about supported exchanges or a typical use case, but these are minor gaps given the annotations and parameter explanations.

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 provides only names, types, and defaults with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description's Args section gives clear, meaningful explanations for all five parameters, including explicit value ranges for rsi_range ('oversold' <30, etc.). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states it is a 'Smart volume + technical analysis combination scanner,' which clearly identifies the tool's action (scanning) and resource (volume/technical data). It distinguishes from siblings like 'volume_breakout_scanner' by explicitly mentioning technical analysis (RSI, price change), though it doesn't name alternatives directly.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists parameters and return behavior, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameter semantics. There are no explicit exclusions or scenario recommendations.

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