market_screener

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

There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not describe what the market overview returns, whether it is a snapshot or streaming data, what metrics are included, or any constraints beyond the PRO lock emoji. The lock hint is not a substantive behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely brief and front-loaded, with no filler or repetition. It is concise, though slightly too skeletal to be considered fully appropriately sized for a tool definition.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description barely meets the minimum for making a call. An agent still cannot tell what data will be returned, how the screener differs from the sibling tools, or what 'overview' means in practice, so the context is incomplete.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never explicitly names the market parameter or explains how it affects results. It does list Japan/US/Crypto, which maps to the enum values, giving the agent some inference about the parameter, but it adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies a market overview scoped to Japan, US, and crypto, which is a distinct resource from the quote/chart siblings. However, it lacks an actionable verb and does not specify what the overview contains or how it behaves as a screener, leaving the exact purpose somewhat vague.

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?

No usage guidance is given. The description does not say when to choose market_screener over get_quote, search_stocks, technical_analysis, or compare_stocks, so the agent must infer that a broad market-level snapshot is intended.

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