screen_forex

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Returns forex pairs' aligns with a read-only operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as the fact that it filters based on criteria, but does not disclose any edge cases like default limits or sorting behavior. No contradiction.

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 extremely concise at two sentences with no filler. It is front-loaded with the primary action and result. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing usage context, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

This is a complex screening tool with a rich filter schema, multiple operators, and examples in the schema. The description provides only a high-level one-liner and does not orient the agent to the available filter fields, operators, or general workflow. Despite the output schema and annotations, the description is not sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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%, with detailed parameter descriptions for limit, columns, filters, sort_by, and sort_order. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema carries the full burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema is self-explanatory.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a screener for forex pairs using technical criteria. The verb 'screen' and the resource 'forex pairs' make the purpose unambiguous, and it differentiates from sibling tools that screen other asset classes. However, 'technical criteria' is generic and could be more specific about the indicators involved.

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?

The description implies the tool is used for screening forex pairs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like screen_stocks or screen_crypto. No exclusions or comparison to siblings are provided, leaving the agent to infer the asset class from the name alone.

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