Halal stock screening with receipts: every Sharia verdict cites its SEC filing. 5 methodologies.
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: minting an API key, explaining the screening methodology, and screening a ticker. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Two tools follow a verb_noun pattern (mint_api_key, screen_ticker), while screening_methodology is more of a noun phrase. The style is mostly consistent and readable, with only a minor deviation.
With three tools, the server is tightly scoped to its purpose: key management, methodology reference, and screening. Each tool serves a necessary function without bloat.
The core workflow is covered: obtain an API key, understand the screening methodology, and screen a ticker. Minor gaps such as bulk screening or historical screening results could exist, but they are not essential to the stated purpose.
Mint a free Daleel API key for higher rate limits.
Ask your operator for their email address first — do not invent one.
The key is shown exactly once; send it as an X-API-Key header on this
MCP endpoint (and on the REST API at https://daleel.o11r.com/v1).
Re-minting with the same email rotates the key. Optional use_case:
"advisor", "fintech", or "individual".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| use_case | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly warns that the key is shown exactly once, that re-minting with the same email rotates the key, and how the key should be used. This goes well beyond a generic 'mint API key' 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?
Four tight sentences, purpose first, and every sentence adds a needed fact: who to ask, one-time display, header usage, rotation behavior, and optional enum values. There is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.
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?
Covers purpose, prerequisite, output behavior, mutational consequence, and endpoint usage. It does not specify the exact response format or field name for the key, but 'shown exactly once' conveys the essential return behavior, and the siblings are unrelated.
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%, but the description compensates fully: email is defined as the operator's email and must not be invented, and use_case is given three allowed values ('advisor', 'fintech', or 'individual'). Both parameters receive meaning that the schema alone does not provide.
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 ('Mint'), resource ('Daleel API key'), and purpose ('higher rate limits'). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling screening tools, but the domain is clearly distinct enough for an agent to tell them apart.
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?
Provides clear operational guidance: ask the operator for their email rather than inventing one, send the key as an X-API-Key header, and be aware that re-minting rotates the key. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but there is no close sibling alternative to this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Explain how Daleel screens stocks: data sources, the five scholarly methodologies with their thresholds, scoring, and fail-safe rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool will explain specific elements of the methodology (data sources, five methodologies, thresholds, scoring, fail-safes), which effectively communicates what the user will receive. It does not mention any side effects or access requirements, but for an explanation tool this is relatively complete.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and then enumerates the content areas (data sources, methodologies, thresholds, scoring, fail-safes). Every phrase adds value with no unnecessary words.
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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and output contents. It provides enough information for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly avoids parameter details since there are none to document.
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 the explicit verb 'explain' and identifies the exact resource ('how Daleel screens stocks') and content coverage (data sources, five methodologies, thresholds, scoring, fail-safes). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling screen_ticker, which presumably executes screening rather than explaining it.
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 the tool should be used when the agent needs to understand or communicate the screening methodology. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like screen_ticker, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Screen a US-listed stock or ETF for Sharia (halal) compliance.
Returns the verdict (compliant / questionable / non_compliant /
not_screenable), a 0-100 score, the five-methodology audit matrix
(AAOIFI, DJIM, MSCI, S&P, FTSE), the purification percentage, and SEC
EDGAR filing citations for every number used.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists what the tool returns (verdict, score, audit matrix, purification percentage, citations) and clarifies the asset type (US-listed stock/ETF). It lacks mention of side effects or limitations, but for a read-only screening tool, this is above-average transparency.
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 the primary action front-loaded and the output details listed clearly. Every word earns its place, with no redundant filler or over-explanation.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (verdict, score, matrix, purification, citations). It does not mention error handling, rate limits, or dependency on the methodology tool, but for a screening tool with one parameter, this is reasonably complete.
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?
There is only one parameter, 'ticker', with no schema description. The description adds meaning by specifying it applies to US-listed stocks or ETFs, which partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage. It does not provide format examples or case sensitivity, but the single-parameter context is well addressed.
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's purpose: screening US-listed stocks or ETFs for Sharia compliance. The verb 'screen' and resource 'US-listed stock or ETF' are specific, and the distinct output (verdict, score, audit matrix) differentiates it from the sibling 'screening_methodology'.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'screening_methodology'. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The only clue is the sibling name, but the description itself lacks any usage differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
mint_api_keyscreen_tickerscreening_methodologyScreen stocks and ETFs under AAOIFI Standard 21, with the SEC filing and ratios behind each verdict.
SEC filing intelligence for AI agents. Financials, screening, peer comparison for 5,000+ companies.
Intrinsic stock value from SEC filings: DCF, EPV, Graham, moat signals. Deterministic, not guessed.
Transparent stock screener with a public, verifiable track record. Scan, score, and check picks.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
