Screener Recommend Strategies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read. The description adds the accepted market values and the chaining contract, but since an output schema exists, the lack of return-shape detail is acceptable. Still, no extra behavioral traits (e.g., result limits) are disclosed.

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?

Three terse sentences with zero filler: one for the core purpose, one for the parameter format with default, and one for the next step. Every sentence earns its place and the structure front-loads the most important information.

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 single-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the market parameter, and the crucial follow-up chaining to screener_search and screener_strategy that a consumer would need to build a full workflow.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single optional market parameter, the baseline is 3. The description restates the same market format and default as the schema, so it adds little beyond what structured data already provides at the parameter level.

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?

"List platform-preset screener strategies" uses a specific verb (list) with a well-scoped resource (platform-preset strategies). The qualifier "platform-preset" explicitly differentiates this from the sibling screener_user_strategies, and the chaining note distances it from screener_search and screener_strategy.

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?

Useful downstream context is given (pass id to screener_search strategy_id to run, or screener_strategy to inspect filters), which implies what to do with the output. However, it never explicitly states when to use this vs. alternatives such as screener_user_strategies — the contrast is only implied by the word "platform-preset."

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