scan_market

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses key output fields (data_stale, symbol_valid, matched_filters, signal_summary) and warns that data_stale=false doesn't guarantee tradability, requiring symbol_valid. It also clarifies the filter AST restriction (not SQL), adding important contextual 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 a single paragraph of three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by output details and a caveat. Every sentence adds value, though it's slightly dense with Turkish terminology and the '2.16' reference.

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 no output schema, the description explains important return fields and the tradability caveat. However, it lacks details on pagination, sorting, timeframes, and the exact AST node structure beyond filter types, leaving some gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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 coverage is only 25%, with only 'filters' having a description. The description enriches the filters parameter by listing allowed filter types and nesting via and/or, but it doesn't explain limit, cursor, combine, sort_by, timeframe, or the idempotency/request fields, so most parameters remain unclear despite defaults/enums.

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 states it 'scans the symbol universe' using an allowlisted filter AST, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by listing available filter types and noting it's not free SQL, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for screening the symbol universe with structured filters, but it doesn't explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear from the scanning description, yet no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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