get_screener_stocks

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. 'Get stock screener' gives no information about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what format the output takes, whether there are rate limits, or what happens on errors. The description is too vague to provide any meaningful behavioral context.

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 ('Get stock screener' - three words) but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified. While it has zero wasted words, it fails to provide essential information that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose. Conciseness should not sacrifice clarity, making this borderline between efficient and inadequate.

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 complexity implied by the sibling tools (which cover diverse financial data endpoints) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. 'Get stock screener' doesn't explain what a 'stock screener' is in this context, what data is returned, or how this tool fits among the many data retrieval siblings. For a tool in what appears to be a financial API suite, this leaves critical gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the non-existent parameters, though the description doesn't add any parameter-specific value (which isn't needed here).

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 'Get stock screener' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_screener_stocks'. It doesn't specify what action is performed (e.g., list, retrieve, filter) or what resource is accessed (e.g., screener results, screener definitions). Compared to siblings like 'get_screener_analysts' or 'get_screener_option_contracts', it fails to distinguish what makes this tool unique.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools focused on different data types (alerts, congress trades, dark pools, earnings, ETFs, market data, news, options, stock flows), there's no indication whether this tool returns screener configurations, screener results, or something else. No context or exclusions are mentioned.

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