scan_market

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It accurately describes a read-only operation returning a list with current prices and optional filtering, and there are no hidden side effects. It does not detail the exact response structure or potential limitations, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the main purpose immediately, followed by a second clause about filters. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 tool's low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, the exchange filtered, and the optional filters with their intended use. It is complete for a straightforward market scanner.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptive coverage for both parameters (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context by linking maxPrice to 'penny stock scanning' and minVolume to 'exclude dead/illiquid stocks', enriching the semantics beyond mere schema descriptions.

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 action ('Get list'), resource ('all stocks trading on CSE'), and provides scope ('current prices'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific subsets like top gainers, order books, or sector summaries.

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 gives clear use-case context for its filters ('penny stock scanning', 'exclude dead/illiquid stocks'), implying when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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