Filter and screen stocks based on financial criteria like market cap range, sector, P/E ratio thresholds, dividend yield, or revenue growth. Returns matching ticker symbols with key metrics. Use for value investing, growth stock identification, or portfolio rebalancing analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| criteria | No | Filtering criteria as key-value pairs (e.g. {'sector': 'technology', 'market_cap_min': 1000000000, 'pe_ratio_max': 25}) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds modest value by stating it 'Returns matching ticker symbols with key metrics.' It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, result limits, or matching logic, but given the read-only annotation the bar is lower and the description is adequate.
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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Filter and screen stocks'), then lists criteria, return value, and use cases efficiently. Every sentence 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, what it returns ('matching ticker symbols with key metrics'), and when to use it. Minor gaps include not clarifying whether criteria is optional and what exactly constitutes 'key metrics,' but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'criteria' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples of filter attributes (e.g., dividend yield, revenue growth) but does not provide syntactic details beyond the schema's own example. It enriches the semantic picture slightly but does not fully compensate for the lack of structured parameter definitions.
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 phrase 'Filter and screen stocks' and enumerates concrete criteria like market cap range, sector, P/E ratio thresholds, dividend yield, and revenue growth. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_stock_data by implying batch screening across stocks rather than retrieval of a single stock.
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 clear usage context with 'Use for value investing, growth stock identification, or portfolio rebalancing analysis.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use cases effectively guide the agent toward this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: crypto prices, exchange rates, stock data, stock screening, and crypto portfolio tracking. However, get_crypto_prices and track_crypto_portfolio both return crypto price data, and get_stock_data and screen_stocks are related but distinct in action.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_, screen_, track_). The 'get_' prefix is used for three tools, with 'screen_' and 'track_' as appropriate action verbs. No mixed conventions.
Five tools is well-scoped for a finance server covering cryptocurrencies, exchange rates, and stocks. Each tool earns its place, covering core data retrieval and screening functions without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers key finance use cases: price lookups, screening, and portfolio tracking. Minor gaps exist, such as no historical price data or stock portfolio tracking, but the primary domain is well-served.