scan_watchlist

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that output is sorted and includes top buys/risks, implying a read-only ranking operation. However, it does not detail potential behavioral aspects like API rate limits or error handling.

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?

Description is concise with a clear title line, a 'Best use' section, and parameter details. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 single parameter and presence of output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, what input is needed, and what output is returned. It is contextually complete for the complexity level.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds value by specifying that symbols are NSE symbols and providing an example. This clarifies the expected format beyond the generic array type.

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 states the verb 'Batch-rank', the resource 'watchlist', and the method 'FinStack's multi-factor stock signal score'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stock_screener or compare_stocks_tool by focusing on ranking and signal scoring.

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?

Explicit 'Best use' section lists concrete scenarios: daily triage, automation, and finding top buys/risks. This provides clear context for when to use the tool.

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