rank_by_ta

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds modest value by explaining the weighting/timeframe methodology, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as output ordering or limitations beyond what schemas/annotations provide.

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 short, front-loaded sentences deliver the core action and purpose without filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes the tool's function immediately clear.

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?

Given the detailed input schema, annotations, and output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and main usage. The only minor gap is a lack of direct differentiation from sibling screening tools, but this is not a serious omission.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description's mention of 'weighted' and 'across timeframes' reinforces the role of weights and timeframes, but it adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Rank') and clearly identifies the resource ('symbols') and the method ('weighted technical analysis scores across timeframes'). It also states the intended comparison use case ('strongest overall TA signals'), which helps distinguish it from sibling screening/lookup tools.

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?

Provides clear context: useful for comparing which symbols have the strongest overall TA signals. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the stated use case makes it reasonably clear when to use this ranking tool versus the sibling screen/lookup tools.

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