screener_multi_timeframe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level action without revealing what the tool actually does internally—whether it computes indicators, returns signals, or performs external requests. There is no mention of output format, side effects, or limitations, so an agent cannot anticipate the tool's behavior or consequences.

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 with no filler words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise for a tool with a straightforward input schema.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, placing the burden on the description to convey what results the agent can expect. The one-sentence description does not explain the nature of the analysis, the output structure, or any nuances like whether historical data is fetched or whether it's real-time. Given the moderate complexity of multi-timeframe analysis, this is insufficient for confident invocation.

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% description coverage for all parameters (symbol, exchange, timeframes), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no further parameter semantics; it just repeats 'symbol' and 'timeframes' in natural language. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter explanation.

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's function: analyzing a specific symbol across multiple timeframes. The verb 'analyze' is action-oriented and the resource (symbol) and scope (multiple timeframes) are explicit, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like screener_top_gainers that scan markets. However, it doesn't specify what kind of analysis is performed (e.g., trend, momentum, indicators), leaving some ambiguity.

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 symbol-specific multi-timeframe analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions, such as 'for market-wide scans use screener_* tools', nor does it reference sibling analysis tools. The context is clear enough to infer basic use, but the absence of alternatives or conditions leaves a gap.

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