get_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add some behavior: sorting order, validation of tickers, and public access. However, it omits important traits like default filtering behavior (includeFiltered=false), response format, and any rate limits or errors.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core function and sorting detail, though the phrase 'One scan' is slightly vague.

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 simple retrieval tool with well-documented schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It leaves out what 'validated' means, the structure of the response, and any special behavior around FILTERED tickers, which is a gap given no output schema.

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 100%, with both scanId and includeFiltered fully described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it implies filtering via 'validated' but does not directly connect to includeFiltered.

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 indicates this tool retrieves a single scan's tickers, with sorting by aiScore and opportunityScore. It distinguishes from list_scans by specifying 'One scan' and from get_ticker by focusing on a scan's validated results.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_scans or get_ticker. The 'Public' note hints at accessibility but does not clarify conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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