screen_stocks

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 does disclose useful behavioral context ('server-side, fast', 'limit ≤ 250') but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only query, how results are returned, or how filters combine. 'Screen' semantically implies non-mutating behavior, but the safety profile is implicit rather than stated.

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 dense but focused: the first sentence states the core behavior and performance trait, then the second sentence enumerates filters and the sort/limit contract. There is no filler, and the most important scoping information 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?

For a tool with 19 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers nearly all invocation-critical information: scope, filter domains, units, allowed sector values, sort options, and a hard limit. It does not describe the output shape or the default sort ordering beyond what the schema already provides, but those gaps are minor for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 does add real meaning: units ('₹ crore', 'PE (ttm)', '3-month average volume'), the allowed Yahoo sector enum, valid sort_by values, and the result cap. It does not fully map every schema field (for example, 'ascending' and the min/max pairs) but the parameter names in the schema are largely self-explanatory.

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 a specific verb ('Screen'), a clear resource ('all NSE-listed stocks'), and a well-defined operation ('by fundamentals and price action'). Sibling search tools like search_stocks and get_top_movers are clearly different because this is a market-wide fundamental/price screener, not a name search or a pre-computed movers list.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the agent needs to filter across the entire NSE-listed universe on fundamentals and price metrics. It does not explicitly name search_stocks as an alternative for name/symbol lookup, so it stops short of a full when-not-to-use statement.

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