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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one explains the screening methodology, the other performs the actual screening. No overlap or ambiguity exists.
Both names share the 'screen' root, but one uses a noun form (screening_methodology) and the other uses a verb phrase (screen_ticker). The pattern is not perfectly uniform but is predictable and readable.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin, though the scope is narrow and focused. This is borderline per the rubric.
The server covers the core workflow: explaining the methodology and executing a screening. Minor gaps like batch screening or historical results are not present but can be worked around.