run_bull_milker_screener

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only — returns candidates for you to evaluate, never places any order,' which is a crucial behavioral disclosure. It also explains the effect of overriding bounds. It does not mention rate limits or data freshness, but for a screening tool the key behavior is well covered.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, defaults/overrides, market values, and safety guarantee. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the 7 parameters, lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers defaults, market values, and read-only behavior. It does not mention the relationship to the extended screener or any limitations, but the output schema presumably covers return values, making the description reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by naming the three filter dimensions (turnover, volume, % change) and providing default values with units (2-10%, 500k-5M, 1-8%). It also explains that any bound can be overridden and gives valid market values. This meaningfully adds to the bare schema, though it does not map each parameter name explicitly.

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 screener with turnover, volume, and % change filters. It is specific about the resource (Bull Milker screener) and action (run), but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling run_bull_milker_extended_screener, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear context on how to use the tool: it provides default filter ranges and explains that any bound can be overridden to widen or narrow the scan. It also lists allowed market values. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus the extended screener or other alternatives, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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