run_screen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the scan covers every listed stock daily, a preset reproduces exactly what the website shows, and filters AND together with the preset. It omits pagination/limit behavior and result shape, though an output schema exists.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and each sentence carries information. The parenthetical on 'every listed stock' and the website-fidelity sentence are justified, though slightly more text than strictly needed.

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 six optional parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description supplies the missing conceptual glue (preset vs filter, AND semantics, scan scope). The main gap is routing guidance among siblings and any note on the 1-100 limit default of 25, which the agent must read from the schema.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds semantics the schema does not: filters are AND-combined and are also ANDed with the preset. It does not explain limit, sort_by inheritance from the preset, or descending beyond what the schema says.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Run a preset screen and/or custom filters') and scopes it to a market's full daily scan over every listed stock, which separates it from list_screens (preset ids) and get_stock (single symbol). It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated by name.

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?

'and/or' plus 'Filters are combined with AND, including with the preset' implies both are optional and combinable, and 'the project's website shows for it' hints at what a preset returns. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. that screen ids come from list_screens), and no exclusions versus market_overview or group_rankings.

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