egx_stock_screener

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

No annotations are provided to indicate read-only or destructive behavior. The description does not disclose data source, latency, rate limits, or whether results are real-time. For a ranking engine, these details are important for proper usage.

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 concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by a structured list of parameters. There is no unnecessary text. However, it could be better organized with distinct sections.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain the return format (e.g., list of stocks with scores, key fields). For a screening tool, this is a significant gap that reduces completeness.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description documents each parameter with allowed values and defaults (e.g., timeframe options, min_score range 0-100, index_filter list, limit max 50). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ranking engine for EGX' that 'finds strong stocks with actionable setups'. This differentiates it from siblings like 'top_gainers' or 'volume_breakout_scanner', though it could be more specific about what constitutes 'actionable setups'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative scanners or analysis tools. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement.

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