screen_stocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions the screening criteria, not whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. This is insufficient for an agent to understand operational implications.

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 sentence with no superfluous text. However, the requirement note is embedded in the same sentence, which could be separated for clarity. Overall, it is concise.

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?

With 10 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too brief to be considered complete. It does not explain the output (though an output schema exists) or how the screening logic works. Missing context for a tool of 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameter meanings. It mentions trend, RSI, EMAs, and volume, which map to some parameters (rsi_min/max, trend_min/max, above_50/200ema, min_relative_volume), but ignores tickers, universe, and max_results. Many parameters remain unexplained.

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 screens stocks by trend, RSI, EMAs, and volume, clearly indicating the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_stock_quote or get_technical_indicators, though it does not explicitly contrast with find_breakouts or other screening tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only added information is a note about requiring a paid Fintools MCP, but no context on prerequisites or use cases.

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