stock_screen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data fields returned (price, PE, market cap) but does not disclose how the limit parameter affects results, whether pagination exists, if the tool is read-only, or any other behaviors beyond the raw purpose. The description is too sparse to fully inform the agent.

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, which is efficient and front-loaded with the main concept. However, it lacks any structural aids such as bullet points or parameter notes, and the crowding of multiple screen types into a parenthetical makes it slightly harder to parse. It is acceptable but not exemplary.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two parameters and an output schema, but the description omits key operational details like how limit modifies the result set and the exact enumeration values expected. The agent may struggle to correctly set the screen parameter given the informal naming. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return fields, but this description still leaves gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists screen categories but uses informal names ('52w extremes' instead of exact enum values like '52w_high'/'52w_low') and does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all. The mapping between the description and the actual schema enum is loose, and limit usage is completely unexplained.

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 names the resource (ET Money market-data screens) and lists the screen types (gainers/losers/52w extremes/multibagger/bluechip/most active/dividend yield), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_detail or index_stocks. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', leaving the exact operation slightly implied.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stock_detail, index_stocks, or sector_stocks. There is no mention of preferred use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, forcing the agent to infer based solely on the tool name and list of screens.

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