stock_screener

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

With no annotations, the description clearly explains the tool's screening behavior, including criteria and exchange options. However, it does not address potential side effects, authentication, or rate limits, which are minor given the read-only nature.

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 well-structured with a summary, parameter list, and examples, all front-loaded. Every sentence is useful, and the examples are concise yet illustrative.

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 output schema exists, the description focuses on inputs and usage. It covers all 9 parameters across two exchanges, includes examples, and provides sufficient detail for effective use without superfluous information.

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 0%, so the description compensates fully with detailed explanations for each parameter, including examples, defaults, and usage hints like 'e.g., 15 for value stocks', adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Screen stocks by multiple financial criteria' and lists specific filters (P/E, ROE, etc.) and exchanges (Nifty 50, S&P 500), making the purpose clear and distinct from siblings like 'nse_52week_scanner' or 'scan_watchlist'.

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 provides examples illustrating typical usage but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., technical scanners). Usage is implied by the parameter-focused examples.

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