scan_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the output shape (ranked candidates with premium, delta, IV, margin, annualized yield, position sizing) and the scanning-by-strategy behavior, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only query, cannot execute trades, or what the ranking criterion is.

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 single front-loaded sentence communicates the action, allowed strategies, and returned fields without filler. Every part earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of parameter names.

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 is adequate for a screening tool given full schema coverage of required/enum parameters, but the absence of an output schema and the unspecified ranking criterion leave some ambiguity about how results are ordered. It does not explain what 'ranked' means or how candidates should be interpreted.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all six parameters. The description only echoes the strategy enum and general output fields, adding no additional parameter semantics.

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 names a specific action ('Scan'), a resource ('option trading opportunities'), and the supported strategies ('naked_put, strangle, covered_call'), and it lists the returned ranking metrics. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling option-data tools such as get_options_chain or find_options_by_delta, so it misses the top tier for sibling differentiation.

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 intended use is implicit: call it when you need strategy-based option candidates rather than raw market data or order execution. It provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, so the agent is left to infer placement among the sibling tools.

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