get_preset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict these. It adds useful context by enumerating preset meanings and by drawing the boundary for market_indexes ('use lookup_symbols'), while clearly stating the tool returns filter configuration rather than executing a screen. This is more than a bare repeat of the annotations, though no deeper side-effect/rate-limit/auth notes are provided.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a scannable bullet list of presets. Each bullet is compact and directly functional—there is no fluff, redundant text, or padding. The length is justified by the need to enumerate the presets.

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 a simple single-parameter tool with read-only annotations and an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It provides the complete set of accepted preset keys, each with descriptive context, and even supplies a cross-reference for the market_indexes edge case. Nothing material is missing 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema itself refers to the tool description for available preset keys. The description fully compensates by listing all valid preset_name values and explaining their screening focus, which makes parameter selection straightforward and unambiguous.

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 uses an explicit verb and resource: 'Get a pre-configured screening strategy' and further clarifies the return value ('Returns filter configuration'). The phrase 'pre-configured screening strategy' distinguishes it from screen execution tools like screen_stocks, and the preset list makes the exact scope of the tool obvious.

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?

Usage context is implied by the listing of available presets and by the note to 'use lookup_symbols' for market_indexes, but there is no explicit explanation of when to use get_preset versus alternatives such as list_presets. The description does not state exclusions or recommend a workflow like 'retrieve a preset, then apply it to screen_stocks.'

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