Relative Value Scan

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

The description adds some context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating returns are 'Scan results ranked by stretch', but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, or potential side effects. The annotation already covers read-only safety, so the bar is lower, yet it still lacks depth about the underlying behavior.

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 highly structured with bullet points for the two views and a clear 'Args' section. It is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. No fluff or redundant information.

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 description covers purpose, views, parameters, and a high-level return statement. However, without an output schema, it lacks detail on the exact structure of results (e.g., fields, ordering) beyond 'ranked by stretch'. For a scan tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive, so a slight deduction is warranted.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description is the sole source for parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains each argument: 'view' with valid options, 'limit' with a 1-50 range, and 'threshold' with its default and purpose. This exceeds what the schema provides and is essential for correct usage.

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 tool's purpose as 'Market-wide relative-value scans' and breaks down two specific modes ('mean_reversion' and 'pairs') with concrete use cases (rich/cheap vol candidates, pairs trading). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_volatility_arb, which likely targets a different strategy.

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?

It explains the two views and when each is appropriate (e.g., 'mean_reversion' for stretched IV/SPY ratios, 'pairs' for rich-vs-cheap pairs), giving clear context for selection. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, so it falls short of perfect guidance.

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