scan_market

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that this is an external TradingView scanner API call and gives relevant domain conventions. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether rate limits or auth are involved, or what happens on API failure.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The market list and scanner-field examples are useful, though the market list partially duplicates the schema's example values.

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 well-described schema and the tool's relatively simple screening purpose, the contextual picture is mostly complete. The main gap is the lack of explicit output-shape information, but the schema's 'columns' parameter and the phrase 'symbols matching field filters' imply the return format adequately.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining that filter fields use scanner names like 'RSI', 'close', 'volume', 'market_cap_basic', and 'Recommend.All', and by giving an example filter ('RSI < 30') that maps directly to the schema's operation enum.

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 a specific action ('Screen a market for symbols matching field filters') and the means ('TradingView's scanner API'), so an agent knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling watchlist/quote/snapshot tools, but the screening function is immediately recognizable.

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 gives clear use context: scanner-style market screening with filter examples and supported market names. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the examples and phrasing make the intended usage reasonably explicit.

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