nse_52week_scanner

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the scan modes and the threshold's effect, and examples hint at the expected output. However, it doesn't mention output format, pagination, or potential limitations, which are relevant for a scanner 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 well-structured with a clear one-line purpose, a brief rationale paragraph, and bullet-point parameter documentation. It is slightly verbose with the popularity note, but every sentence contributes to understanding the tool. The layout is front-loaded and easy to follow.

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 two-parameter scanner, the description comprehensively covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and usage in different scenarios. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return-value detail is not a gap. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema (0% description coverage) provides only types and defaults, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters in detail: the valid values for scan_type and the meaning of threshold_pct as a percentage. The examples further illustrate valid parameter combinations, adding significant value beyond the schema.

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's function with a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('Nifty 50 stocks near their 52-week high or low'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on 52-week extremes and even notes it's the most popular scan on Screener.in, providing clear differentiation.

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 explains when to use the tool (momentum candidates near highs, value or falling knives near lows) and provides multiple examples of scan types and thresholds. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or specify when NOT to use this scan, so it falls short of the top score.

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