screen_stocks

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes search and filtering behavior but does not explicitly state read-only nature, limitations, authentication, or rate limits. Adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Efficiently communicates the tool's function and usage.

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 18 parameters (none required) and existence of output schema, description adequately explains the tool's capability. Could be slightly more explicit about return format, but output schema covers that.

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 100%. Description only lists a few criteria ('sector, market cap, beta, dividend') without adding meaning beyond the detailed schema descriptions. Baseline score of 3.

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?

Clearly states 'Screen stocks by fundamental criteria' with examples, distinguishing from siblings like 'compare_peers' or 'screen_estimate_revisions'. Could be more specific about what 'screen' entails (filter and return results).

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?

Provides context: 'Searches the full universe of stocks and ETFs' and 'Combine multiple criteria to narrow results.' No explicit when-not or alternatives, but is adequate for a filtering tool.

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