rank_income_setups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: each ticker may appear as both CC and CSP, estimates are as-of the latest snapshot, and earnings/event risk is flagged but not filtered out. It does not explicitly state read-only status, but the ranking nature and the mention of 'estimates' imply no side effects. This is sufficient transparency given the absence of 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?

The description is efficiently structured: first sentence defines the purpose and scoring, second sentence explains output fields, third sentence details filters with value ranges, and fourth sentence adds a caveat about snapshots and risk. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the ranking logic, output fields, filter options, and data freshness caveat. It covers all essential aspects needed for an agent to select and use this tool correctly without additional context.

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% description coverage for its parameters, but the description fully compensates by detailing each filter: 'type' ('cc' or 'csp'; omit for both), 'min_income_score' (0-10), and 'limit' (2-50, default 10). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema titles and enables correct invocation.

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 verb 'Rank' and the resource 'single-leg income setups (covered calls and cash-secured puts)' across all tickers. It specifies the scoring mechanism (IVR-led, regime-guarded income-fit score) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'rank_top_setups' by focusing specifically on income setups with a unique scoring approach.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to rank income setups across all tickers with optional filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope ('across all tickers') and filter options imply a broad screener use case, which is sufficient context without exclusions.

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