egx_stock_screener

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details the 100-point scoring model, the 70+ threshold for trade setups, and the return structure, which is substantial. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, data freshness, or any restrictions beyond the scoring logic, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 well-structured with bullet points for the scoring model, front-loading the purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is appropriately detailed for a complex tool without being bloated.

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 description covers all essential aspects: purpose, scoring method, parameter semantics, and return values (ranked stocks with score breakdown, trade plans for high-scorers). Given there is no output schema, the 'Returns' section is sufficient and complete.

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%, but the description fully documents all four parameters: timeframe with valid values and default, min_score with range and default, index_filter with specific indices and empty-for-all, and limit with max and default. This completely compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 is a 'production stock ranking engine for EGX' that 'finds strong stocks with actionable setups.' It specifies the resource (EGX stocks) and distinguishes itself from siblings like sector scans or index analysis.

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 use for stock screening and provides scoring details, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusion criteria. There is no comparison to the many sibling tools, so usage guidance is only implied.

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