screen_stocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only covers parameter semantics but does not mention limitations, rate limits, auth requirements, or that it is a read operation (e.g., no destructive actions indicated). The description is insufficient for behavioral transparency.

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 very short and includes a concise code example. Every sentence adds value, and it is well-structured with line breaks separating the summary and parameter details. 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description covers the core parameters but omits 'limit' and 'frequency' entirely. Without explaining these, the agent lacks complete context for using the tool effectively.

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%, and the description explains 'filters' in detail (structure with indicators/operator/value) and 'as_of' as ISO date. However, 'limit' and 'frequency' are not described, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 'Full-market technical-indicator scan' clearly states the tool's purpose and resource. It differentiates from siblings like 'get_correlation_matrix' and 'get_ohlcv' by focusing on scanning based on indicators, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 input format with an example ('filters' list with operator/value) and mentions 'as_of' is optional. It implicitly tells when to use (for screening stocks), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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