screen_market

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses bounded concurrency for rate limits, per-symbol failures in errors, and the default symbol universe (top_n by 24h volume). These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the basic operation, though it does not detail response structure or edge-case handling.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a concrete filter example and key behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 7 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation details: filter format, operator list, default symbol selection, and error reporting. An output schema exists, so return format is presumably handled there. Missing some parameter explanations (exchange, timeframe) but the core usage is clear enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 provides a detailed example for 'filters' with valid 'op' values, clarifies the behavior of 'symbols' (omit to use top_n), and mentions 'quote' and 'top_n'. However, 'exchange', 'timeframe', and 'sort_by' are not semantically explained beyond their names/defaults, leaving some gaps.

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 opens with 'Screen many symbols by indicator and price conditions,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_ticker or compute_indicators by focusing on multi-symbol screening with conditions.

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 the tool is for screening symbols, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The behavior when symbols are omitted is explained, yet no direct comparison with sibling tools is given. Usage context is present but not fully explicit.

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