finance_stock_screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool can operate in ranking or filtering modes, and that all parameters are optional, implying a query behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or disclose any mutation risks, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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, using two clear bullet points with examples. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately explains the two main operational modes. However, it could be more complete by briefly summarizing the output format or clarifying that the tool returns a list of stocks. The missing parameter explanations reduce completeness slightly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains a subset of parameters (sort_by, limit, industry, pe_max) through examples. Critical parameters like pb_max, pe_min, min/max_market_cap, min_dividend_yield, and order are not described, leaving ambiguity about their meaning and default values.

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 specifies that the tool screens stocks by criteria or obtains top/bottom rankings, differentiating it from sibling tools like finance_stock (individual stock info) and finance_market (market data). Concrete examples illustrate both ranking and filtering modes.

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 explicit examples of ranking (sort_by, limit) and filtering (industry, pe_max) usage, and states that with no filters it returns a simple ranking. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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