screening_methodology
Explain how Daleel screens stocks: data sources, the five scholarly methodologies with their thresholds, scoring, and fail-safe rules.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
daleel
by com.o11r
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness5/5
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.
Parameters4/5
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.
Purpose5/5
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.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one explains the screening methodology, the other performs the actual screening. No overlap or ambiguity exists.
Naming Consistency4/5
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.
Tool Count3/5
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin, though the scope is narrow and focused. This is borderline per the rubric.
Completeness4/5
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.