rank_top_setups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral details like the default limit, value ranges for score/IV/price, and AND'd filter logic. However, it does not disclose whether authentication is required, what the return object contains (though an output schema exists), or any rate/performance implications of scanning all tickers.

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 a single dense sentence, but the core purpose is front-loaded. The long filter list is necessary to convey constraints. It is efficient and employs consistent formatting (backticks, ranges) to aid readability, though it could be structured as bullets for even better scannability.

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?

With 12 optional parameters and no annotations, the description covers invocation thoroughly, and the output schema covers return structure. It lacks an explicit comparison to sibling screening tools (run_screener, rank_income_setups) and does not explain the opportunity score's derivation, but it gives enough context to select and invoke the 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 has zero descriptions and no enums, yet the description details every parameter: ranges (limit 1-200, min_score 0-10, IV rank 0-100, price bounds), CSV formats for multi-value fields, a concrete example for regime, and defaults. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of semantic information.

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 ('Rank'), a clear resource ('trade setups'), a scope ('across all tickers'), and a sorting key ('opportunity score descending'). This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rank_income_setups, which focuses on income rather than opportunity.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a ranked, filterable list of top setups across all tickers is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as comparing with run_screener or rank_income_setups.

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