screener_bollinger_squeeze

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the purpose and does not explicitly disclose that this is a read-only screening operation, nor does it mention any limitations, prerequisites, or side effects. The verb 'Find' hints at read-only behavior, but the absence of explicit safety or operational context is a gap.

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 conveys the essence without redundancy. Every word adds value, and it does not repeat schema or parameter details.

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?

This is a simple screening tool with well-documented parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not hint at the return format (e.g., list of symbols, prices, BB widths). The description is adequate for a basic understanding but lacks enough context for an agent to predict the exact structure of results, making it incomplete.

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 descriptions for all 5 parameters, including defaults and enums. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Find') and clearly identifies the resource ('cryptocurrencies') and the filtering criterion ('narrow Bollinger Band width'), with an explicit use case ('potential breakout candidates'). This distinguishes it from sibling screeners like screener_top_gainers or screener_rsi_oversold.

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 when to use this tool: when seeking potential breakout candidates based on narrow Bollinger Band width. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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