screen_options_wheel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool returns ranked candidates including premium yields and risk metrics, but does not disclose data freshness, rate limits, or whether it requires authentication. The screening criteria are explained, but behavioral traits beyond that are absent.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, then method, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value, and the argument list is clearly formatted. No wasted words.

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?

With only 3 parameters, all explained, and an output schema present (so return format is covered), the description is complete. It explains the screening logic and metrics returned, making it sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, default values, and constraints (e.g., min_price avoids penny stocks). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though the parameter names are already somewhat self-explanatory.

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 tool screens for cash-secured put candidates for the wheel strategy, using a specific verb ('screen') and resource ('cash-secured put opportunities'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., analyze_stock, get_market_pulse) by focusing solely on wheel strategy candidates.

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 explains the wheel strategy and when to use the tool (for identifying candidates with high put premiums). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or clear alternatives among siblings. The context is helpful but not exhaustive.

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