egx_sector_scanner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds a conceptual summary ('identifies hot/cold sectors and top picks') but does not disclose internal scoring logic, output structure, or any caveats like data freshness. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 opens with a concise one-sentence purpose, then cleanly lists each parameter with its meaning and defaults. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and free of unnecessary words—every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only scanner with all-optional parameters and complete parameter documentation, the description is largely self-sufficient. The main gap is the lack of output format details (e.g., what the returned data looks like) and no clarification of the scoring criteria for 'hot/cold', but these are minor for an agent making a call.

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 schema has zero description coverage (0%), so the description fully compensates. It lists each parameter with allowed values for timeframe (5m, 15m, etc.), numeric ranges for top_n_sectors (1-18) and top_n_stocks (1-10), min_stock_score range (0-100), and defaults. This is exactly the semantic detail an agent needs.

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 it's a sector rotation scanner for EGX that identifies hot/cold sectors and top picks. The verb 'identifies' and the specific resource (EGX sectors) make it unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from generic scanners like top_gainers or stock_screener.

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. There is no mention of exclusions or specific conditions, and the sibling list includes a very similar tool (egx_sector_scan) without any differentiation. The agent would have to infer usage from the name and purpose alone.

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