screening_get_supply_demand_breakouts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the screening criteria but omits behavioral details like potential errors, rate limits, or data dependencies. The tool is non-destructive, and the description adequately conveys its read-only nature.

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: a single sentence for purpose followed by bullet points for criteria. It is front-loaded with the core action. Minor redundancy in listing criteria that could be integrated, but overall efficient.

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 presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does. It defines the criteria and parameters. No mention of edge cases or prerequisites, but for a screening tool with explicit criteria, it is complete enough.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions and defaults). The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying how filter_moving_averages interacts with the criteria. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves stocks with supply/demand breakout patterns from accumulation. It lists specific criteria (price above major moving averages, moving average alignment, momentum strength), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_maverick_stocks or get_all_screening_recommendations.

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 implies usage for identifying accumulation-based breakouts but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Siblings like get_screening_by_criteria could be similar, but no context is given for choosing this tool.

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