egx_stock_screener

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

Annotations already establish a read-only, non-destructive, open-world tool, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a basic 'ranking engine' behavior and does not disclose sort order, scoring logic, or result structure.

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?

A one-line summary followed by a compact parameter list with no filler. Every sentence adds value and the most important context is front-loaded.

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 parameter contract is complete and callable, but the description doesn't explain output format or what 'strong' and 'actionable setups' concretely mean. For a screener with no output schema, that leaves some ambiguity about the return value.

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?

All four parameters are documented with allowed values, ranges, and coverage of the schema's gaps. The timeframe options, min_score range, index filter list, and limit max go well beyond the bare schema, which itself has 0% description coverage.

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?

Clearly identifies a stock ranking/screening engine scoped to EGX with a stated goal of finding strong stocks with actionable setups. This differentiates it from generic market tools, though 'actionable setups' is somewhat vague and doesn't sharply distinguish it from sibling EGX scanners.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like stock_screener, egx_sector_scan, or bollinger_scan. The EGX focus implies a use case, but the description never states when it should be preferred or when it should be avoided.

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