edge_scanner

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that output is heuristic-based ('simple heuristics') and intentionally shallow ('quick filter'). It stops short of describing return shape, pagination, or potential side effects, though 'scan/flag' implies a read-only screening operation.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and outcome; the second adds workflow context. The content is front-loaded and all earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter screening tool, the description gives purpose and usage context. It does not explicitly describe the return format, and there is no output schema to compensate, but 'flag those where...' sufficiently implies a list of candidate markets.

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 single parameter 'limit' is already fully described in the schema as 'Markets to scan', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about limit behavior, keeping this at baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scan') and identifies the resource ('trending markets') plus the purpose ('flag those where simple heuristics suggest potential mispricing'). It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named sibling 'scantrending_markets'.

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?

'A quick filter before deep research' gives clear placement in the workflow, implying it should be called before deeper market analysis. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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