scan_watchlist_for_swing_opportunities

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a non-destructive analysis (evaluation, ranking) but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or what 'ranked by confidence score' entails operationally.

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 extremely concise with one sentence, but it lacks structure and omits critical details. It is front-loaded with the key action but sacrifices completeness.

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 presence of many sibling tools, no output schema, and a parameter with no description, the description is incomplete. It fails to define 'swing setups', explain the confidence score, or describe return format, making it insufficient for full understanding.

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 sole parameter 'max_symbols' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain its purpose or effect. The agent receives no guidance on how to use this parameter.

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 that the tool evaluates the watchlist for swing setups and ranks them by confidence score. This differentiates it from the sibling 'scan_watchlist_for_intraday_opportunities', though the verb 'evaluate' is slightly vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_watchlist_for_intraday_opportunities'. The description does not mention context or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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