ai_stock_screening

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only states that the tool screens stocks. It does not describe the return format, whether filters are combined with AND/OR logic, data source, or any limitations, leaving significant ambiguity for a tool with 12 optional filters.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's core purpose. It contains no unnecessary padding or repetition, although the word '智能' (intelligent) is slightly promotional.

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?

Despite a fully documented schema, the tool lacks an output schema and annotations, and the description is too sparse to provide adequate context. It omits key details such as how the filters combine, what the response contains, and when the tool should be chosen over the many siblings, making it incomplete for a complex 12-parameter screener.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter definitions, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of PE/PB/technical indicators/MA alignment loosely aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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's function: screening A-shares based on PE/PB, technical indicators, and moving average alignment. It uses a specific verb ('筛选' / screen) and resource ('A股'), and it is distinct from sibling tools that retrieve quotes, klines, or fundamentals.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or refer to sibling tools like get_realtime_quote or get_fundamentals, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and generic screening purpose.

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