scan_watchlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return structure (ranked_watchlist, top_buys, top_risks) and mentions sorting by signal_score, but it doesn't clarify behavioral aspects like rate limits, data freshness, or whether the ranking is purely based on the multi-factor score without external filters.

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 tightly structured with clear sections: a one-sentence purpose, a bulleted 'Best use' list, an args example, and a returns breakdown. Every line serves a purpose, and the main verb is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 single parameter, existing output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient operational context. It names expected outputs and typical usage scenarios. It slightly lacks detail on what signal_score represents or how thresholds for top_buys/top_risks are determined, but this is not critical for basic invocation.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the only parameter: 'symbols: list of NSE symbols (e.g. ["RELIANCE", "TCS", ...])'. It adds important context including exchange (NSE) and a concrete example, making the parameter unambiguous despite the empty 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Batch-rank a watchlist using FinStack's multi-factor stock signal score.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from single-symbol tools like get_stock_signal_score by emphasizing batch capability.

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 'Best use' section explicitly lists concrete scenarios: daily watchlist triage, n8n/WhatsApp automation, and finding top buys/risks in one shot. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives to exclude.

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