Screener User Strategies

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the market parameter scope but does not provide additional behavioral context such as return formats or error behavior. Since annotations are strong, the bar is lower, and the description adds minimal extra value, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance and cross-references. It is front-loaded and has zero waste, making it easy to scan.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete. The output schema is present (as per context signals), so return value details are covered. The description provides enough context for the agent to know when and how to invoke it, including the market filter and downstream use of the id.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter 'market' with 100% description coverage, including allowed values and default. The description repeats this information ("market: US|HK|CN|SG (default: US)") without adding any new semantic meaning, such as format, examples, or interplay with other parameters. Since schema does the heavy lifting, 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 clearly states the purpose: "List the current user's saved screener strategies." It specifies the resource (user's saved screener strategies) and the operation (list). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like screener_recommend_strategies (recommended vs. user's own) and screener_strategy (inspect conditions vs. list).

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to list the user's saved strategies. It also gives guidance on the workflow: "Pass id to screener_search strategy_id to run, or screener_strategy to inspect conditions." This implies downstream usage, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or contrast with alternatives for listing, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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