screener_volume_surge

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 what the tool does but does not indicate whether it is read-only, any permissions required, rate limits, or how 'average' is computed. The lack of any behavioral context beyond the core function leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.

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, focused sentence of eight words. It is front-loaded with the action and includes the key differentiator ('compared to average'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 description plus schema covers the essential parameters well, but the lack of an output schema means the agent has no explicit guidance on what the result looks like (e.g., list of symbols, metadata). The description's implication of 'find cryptocurrencies' suggests a list, but the tool's overall behavior is not fully specified. It is minimally viable but lacks depth given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 100%, with each parameter (limit, exchange, timeframe, quoteAsset, minVolumeMultiplier) having a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. No additional semantic value is provided by the description itself.

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 resource ('cryptocurrencies') with a clear filter ('unusually high volume compared to average'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling screener tools like screener_top_gainers or screener_bollinger_squeeze, which focus on different criteria.

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 the use case: screening for cryptocurrencies with volume surges. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. No alternative tools are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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