Finviz-only: dilution risk model

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully explains the return envelope and the meaning of `model_available`, including that it reflects whether Finviz flagged the company as dilution-prone, but it omits failure modes, rate limits, or data freshness expectations.

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 short and front-loads the tool's purpose, then separates arguments and returns into clearly labelled sections. The 'Args: symbol: Ticker' line is slightly redundant but does not materially waste space.

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 one required parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers enough to invoke the tool. However, it does not explain what the model examines beyond the field list or clarify the 'Finviz-only' limitation's impact on coverage, leaving a gap for an agent interpreting results.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the description identifies it as the ticker symbol, adding modest clarity beyond the schema's bare 'Symbol' title. With schema coverage at 0%, that brief explanation is sufficient for a single well-understood input.

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 states a specific analytical resource: a dilution-risk model built from share count, float, and cash runway, restricted to Finviz data. It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as stock_ownership or stock_screener.

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 only usage context is the parenthetical 'Finviz-only,' which signals the data source but not when an agent should choose this tool over alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons to guide selection.

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