screen

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

No annotations are provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'live snapshot' indicating real-time read-only data, but does not detail access restrictions, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Description is very concise: two sentences front-loading purpose and listing kinds. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 no output schema, the description only briefly hints at return structure (ranked list vs counts). It does not explain the 'limit' parameter's effect or defaults. The tool is simple, so the description is adequate but leaves some questions unanswered.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description adds explicit enum values for 'kind' and explains the behavioral difference between market_breadth and other kinds. The 'limit' parameter is not described, which is a gap, but the description compensates significantly for the main parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the tool screens the market using prebuilt screens. Lists specific kinds (e.g., top_gainers) and explains the output difference between market_breadth and others. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like run_filter or run_saved_filter.

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?

Description implies usage for quick predefined screens, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_filter or search_symbol. No when-not guidance is provided.

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