discover_stocks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure — and it does so well. It reveals that this is discovery-only, that nothing is excluded by size/index/overlap, that Finviz numbers never enter the score, that later size/sector/overlap tags are informational only, and that it operates on public pages with tier C and no account.

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 front-loaded with the use case and then compresses the mode distinction, exclusion policy, follow-up requirement, and tag-interpretation rule into a few dense sentences without filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers the essential context: user intent, data source (Finviz), modes, inclusion/exclusion behavior, account tier, and required downstream tools. It does not explicitly describe the return format or pagination, but the discovery purpose is clear enough.

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 83%, and the input schema already provides detailed descriptions for mode, sizes, preset, styles, and per_screen. The description adds only minor extra context (e.g. preset being bounded by limit), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens by framing the tool as the 'Discovery step' for the 'I have no idea what to buy' use case, which is a specific and identifiable purpose. It clearly distinguishes itself from scoring/analysis siblings by stating that every candidate 'must be re-scored with rank_candidates/screen_stocks/analyze_stock' and that Finviz numbers never enter the score.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool (initial discovery when the user has no idea what to buy), explains the two modes ('universe' vs 'preset'), and gives follow-up alternatives. It does not explicitly spell out when not to use it, but the discovery-only framing and direction to re-score provide strong contextual guidance.

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