screener_scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the query is bounded, public-only, and explicitly rules out credentials, arbitrary headers, external providers and authenticated fallback. It still omits rate limits and how paging via limit/offset behaves.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the security constraints following as a compact qualifier.

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?

For an 8-parameter, fully optional query tool with no output schema, the description should say what comes back (rows of the requested columns) and how defaults behave. It covers the security envelope well but leaves the response shape and paging semantics to inference.

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%, so the description carries most of the burden; it does name the three concept groups (approved markets, columns, numeric/type filters). But it explains nothing about the cryptic filter operations (equal/egreater/eless), sort_by/sort_order pairing, pagination via limit/offset, or the symbols override.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Run a bounded public TradingView scanner query' over markets, columns and filters. That clearly distinguishes it from quote_get or chart_symbol_search, though it never names a sibling explicitly to reinforce the boundary.

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 states no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, despite siblings like quote_batch, chart_symbol_search and strategy_scan that an agent could plausibly confuse with market screening. The 'No credentials...' clause is a constraint, not routing guidance.

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