stockScreener

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description's safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as rate limits, pagination, or result ordering, but does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key filterable criteria. There is no extraneous information.

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 19 optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description adequately identifies it as a filter tool. However, it does not clarify default behavior (e.g., returns all stocks if no filters) or the output format, leaving some gaps for a comprehensive understanding.

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% (all 19 parameters have descriptions). The description only names a few parameters but does not add explanatory value beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score.

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 it is a stock screener to filter stocks by various criteria like market cap, price, volume, beta, sector, country. It effectively communicates the tool's function but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as getBiggestGainers or getMostActiveStocks.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative screening or list tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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