screener_parse

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It honestly states that common patterns like PER<15, RSI<30, and foreign net buy are handled, and that output is ready for a screener builder. It does not mention behavior on unrecognized input, output shape beyond 'structured filters', or any limitations, which is a notable 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 compact: three sentences covering purpose, supported patterns, and output. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids filler, making it easy to scan.

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 is moderately complex with two parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain the exact structure of the returned filters or how 'hint' affects the result. It says the output is ready for a screener builder, which is some guidance, but an agent might still be unsure about what format to expect.

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%, so the schema already documents both 'text' and 'hint'. The description adds a useful example for 'text' but does not explain the role of 'hint' or how it influences parsing. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Parse') and clearly identifies the resource: free-form screener text converted into structured filters. It gives concrete examples of handled patterns, making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like screener_from_image or ig_to_screener, though the input types are listed.

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 suitable inputs — IG captions, OCR text, manual descriptions — and shows example patterns. It does not state when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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