run_filter

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool runs over live market data, returns matching symbols with a specific structure {rows, matched, returned, normalized, tier, meta}, and that order-book filters enrich a shortlist on demand with a cap. This provides good behavioral transparency for a read-only query tool.

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 two paragraphs with front-loaded purpose. It uses examples and lists key points efficiently without wasted words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating parameter descriptions), but 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?

Given the complexity (custom syntax, 5 params, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: syntax, prerequisite, return format, and order-book behavior. However, it omits meanings for 'limit' and 'description' parameters, and the return fields are listed but not explained, leaving some gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'expression' in detail with examples, mentions 'save_as' for storing filters, and 'enrich_limit' for order-book. However, 'limit' and 'description' are not explained, leaving gaps for two of five parameters. Partial but insufficient compensation.

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 states the tool runs a custom stock filter over the live market and returns matching symbols. It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_saved_filter' by emphasizing it's for custom expressions, and mentions 'filter_help' as a prerequisite, making the specific purpose clear.

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 advises calling filter_help first to see available variables, and explains the two syntax options (TSETMC and friendly aliases). It also notes that order-book filters require setting enrich_limit. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'screen' or 'run_saved_filter', though the sibling list implies those use cases.

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