screen_stocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not mention any limitations, rate limits, or side effects beyond the examples.

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 sentence in Chinese that quickly conveys the tool's purpose and examples. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy, though minor restructuring could improve scanability.

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 involves natural language filtering and returns a list of stocks, but the description does not specify the output format or behavior (e.g., whether it returns full stock details or just symbols). The topN parameter is mentioned in the schema but not explained in the description.

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 100% for the three parameters. The description adds value by providing example natural language conditions (e.g., 'foreign buying for 3 consecutive days'), which clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's generic description.

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 stocks in Taiwan or US markets based on natural language conditions, listing example criteria like foreign buying and moving averages. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single stock data or specific analyses.

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 implies the tool is for filtering stocks by broad criteria but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_stock_price or get_technical_indicators. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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