run_screener

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: filters override preset values, all filters are optional and AND-combined, and `limit` has a default of 20. It also provides range constraints for several parameters. It does not state read-only behavior explicitly, but that is implied by 'run a screener' and is not contradictory. The override and AND logic add significant transparency beyond a simple statement.

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 paragraph but every clause adds value. It front-loads the core purpose and then systematically lists filters with their constraints. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly improved with bullet points or explicit separation. Overall, it is concise and well-organized for the amount of information.

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 (13 parameters, output schema present), the description covers all parameter semantics, override behavior, and filter logic. It does not explain return values because the output schema handles that. It lacks detailed preset definitions or examples of full invocations, but these are not essential for a correct invocation. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and call the tool effectively.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It does so by naming every parameter, specifying types, ranges, defaults, and CSV formats where applicable (e.g., regime CSV, recommended_direction long/short/neutral). It also enumerates the valid presets for the `name` parameter. This is comprehensive and goes well beyond the bare 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-resource pair: 'Run a named screener preset over the cross-ticker ranking.' It clearly indicates the tool executes preset screeners, and enumerates the exact preset names, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like rank_top_setups or get_signals.

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 strong context on when to use the tool: to run a named preset with optional override filters. It explains how filters combine (AND'd) and that they override preset values, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria relative to sibling tools. This is clear usage context without explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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