Equity screener signal — factor/regime screen to a single call [PAID — signal credit or x402 USDC. Cost: 1 signal credit ($1.70-$2.49/credit by pack size). Uncredentialed calls return the 402 payment envelope; set X-API-KEY on the MCP connection or pay x402 out-of-band at GET /api/signal/screener.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses the paid nature, cost, and the 402 payment envelope behavior for uncredentialed calls. It also names the required header (X-API-KEY) and an out-of-band payment path. However, it doesn't describe what happens on successful calls, rate limits, or error behavior beyond 402.
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 dense run-on sentence that mixes purpose, payment terms, credential setup, and error handling. It lacks front-loading of the essential function and buries the most critical operational info in parentheses. The payment details are verbose and could be streamlined.
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 paid tool with complex credential requirements and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: it doesn't explain the output format, the meaning of 'factor/regime screen', or how to successfully invoke the call. It references external docs rather than providing inline guidance. The presence of 43 sibling signal/scan tools makes this incomplete for selection.
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 schema has 0 declared parameters but allows arbitrary string additionalProperties. Schema coverage is 100% because there are no parameters to cover, but the description lacks any explanation of what parameters the endpoint accepts or how to form them. It only points to the free 'instruments' tool for docs, which is indirect guidance. The baseline for 0 params is 4, but the additionalProperties indicate unspecified parameters, and the description fails entirely to explain them.
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 says 'Equity screener signal — factor/regime screen to a single call', which identifies the resource (equity screener) and action (signal screen). However, 'factor/regime screen to a single call' is vague and doesn't clearly distinguish from many sibling signal_* and scan_* tools. It lacks specificity about what inputs drive the screen or what the output represents.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like signal_equities or scan_market. It mentions payment requirements but not selection criteria, use cases, or prerequisites (e.g., what credentials are needed beyond API key).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.