scan_bullish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it returns top N ranked symbols and lists the technical indicators used, but it does not cover error handling, data source caveats, or explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation.

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: the first sentence gives the core purpose, the second summarizes the output, and the Args block provides structured parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 tool's straightforward nature (3 flat parameters, no nested schemas, no output schema), the description covers the essential inputs, output, and methodology. However, the lack of annotations and absence of a detailed return-value format (e.g., whether scores are included alongside symbols) leave minor 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?

The schema has 0% property description coverage, leaving the description's Args section as the only source of parameter meaning. It fully compensates by explaining that symbols are comma-separated, top_n controls the count, and period supports 1mo/3mo/6mo, giving clear semantic context for each field.

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 a specific action ('Scan symbols for bullish trends') with the methodology (SMA, RSI, MACD, ADX) and the output (top N by composite score). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling scanners like scan_pmcc and whale_hunting.

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 its usage for scanning symbols to find bullish trends, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like technical_indicators or scan_pmcc. No alternatives are mentioned and no exclusions are given, so the guidance remains at an implied level.

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