run_bull_milker_extended_screener

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

It discloses that institutional_pct is always None due to moomoo's API limitations, instructs to treat None as unknown, and explicitly states the tool is read-only and never places orders. This goes beyond the absent annotations and covers the tool's safety profile.

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 3 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then adds critical behavioral details. No wasted words.

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 the key behavioral caveat (institutional_pct always None) and read-only nature, and the output schema exists to document returns. However, it doesn't explain the base Bull Milker criteria or how the PE bounds interact, so some context is missing.

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 description mentions PE ratio filtering, which gives meaning to pe_min and pe_max, but does not describe the market parameter or the interaction of pe_min and pe_max. With 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 runs a 'Bull Milker screener' with additional PE ratio filtering and short-interest enrichment, and the name 'extended' differentiates it from the sibling run_bull_milker_screener.

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 usage for screening with PE and short-interest needs, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over run_bull_milker_screener or other screeners, nor any exclusions.

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