tv_screener

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose output fields ('price, volume and RSI data') and the market coverage for France and America. It does not explain how 'top matches' are ordered, how limit interacts with results, or whether RSI bounds are inclusive.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose, then the key market values, then the return data. There is no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 an optional-parameter screener with no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it sensibly: what it screens, key market options, and what data is returned. The missing ordering/ranking criteria and the unexplained min_market_cap parameter are gaps, but the tool remains usable with defaults.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds the 'RSI range' concept and market context, but min_market_cap is completely unexplained and limit is only inferable. The description partially fills the gap but does not fully cover all six parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Screen') with a clear resource ('stocks, crypto or forex symbols') and names the key filtering dimensions. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by focusing on screening/discovery rather than historical data, quotes, or indicators.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool to find symbols matching market, volume, and RSI criteria. However, it never explicitly says when NOT to use it or directs the agent to alternatives like tv_get_quote or tv_get_indicators, so routing is left to inference.

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