Get top-conviction picks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'May be empty between scans' and shows the empty response shape (`{stocks:{}}`). It also explains the underlying signal logic (Q-Scores + corroborating signals), giving the agent a better mental model of what the results represent.

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—two sentences. The first defines the tool's output, the second gives usage context and a caveat. No redundant phrases; every word adds value.

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 simplicity of the tool (no required parameters, no output schema), the description covers the key points: what it returns, when to use it, and the possible empty state. It could mention whether the list is sorted or if a limit must be set, but for a simple list tool with one optional parameter, it is sufficiently complete.

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 fully describes the only parameter 'limit' with default and max values (100% coverage). The description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds no new parameter semantics, so 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 clearly states the purpose: 'StoQuant's current highest-conviction names' with a specific definition ('strongest Q-Scores backed by multiple corroborating signals'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_qscore (single-stock score) or get_hidden_gems by focusing on top-conviction picks as a starting point.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use as the starting point for what does the platform like right now'. This gives a clear when-to-use context. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the 'starting point' phrasing strongly implies this is a high-level overview tool.

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