[Global Equities Screener] Screen Xetra / Deutsche Börse — DAX 40, MDAX, SDAX, TecDAX.
Args: criteria: filter dict (sector, market cap, P/E, etc.) limit: max rows to return
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| criteria | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which cover safety and scope. The description adds that it screens specific indices but does not mention limits, pagination, or output format. It provides marginal behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 extremely concise: a single sentence plus a two-line args list. It front-loads the market scope and provides parameter semantics with examples. No wasted 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?
The tool has simple parameters and annotations. The description covers purpose and parameter semantics moderately well. It lacks details on output structure, error handling, or usage examples, but for a screening tool these are minor gaps given the simplicity.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains criteria as 'filter dict (sector, market cap, P/E, etc.)' and limit as 'max rows to return', adding meaning beyond the schema's bare types and defaults. This gives agents useful guidance on parameter values.
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?
Description clearly states it screens German indices (DAX 40, MDAX, SDAX, TecDAX) on Xetra/Deutsche Börse. The verb 'screen' plus the specific market and indices provides a precise purpose that distinguishes it from sibling screeners for other countries.
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 use for German equities via the market name and indices. While no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' is given, the context is clear among siblings with similarly named screeners for other markets.
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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality across categories (e.g., multiple search_arxiv, search_google_scholar, real estate tools, DNS/WHOIS checks). An agent would struggle to differentiate between similar tools from different categories, leading to ambiguity.
Tools follow a 'category__verb_noun' pattern mostly, but verbs vary (get, search, screen, check, etc.) and some categories use different orders (e.g., 'get_repo_stats' vs 'search_repos'). The consistency is acceptable but not uniform across the entire set.
With 152 tools, the server is excessively large for a single MCP server. While it aims to be an all-in-one gateway, the sheer number overwhelms the agent and likely exceeds practical limits for coherent selection.
The server covers a wide range of domains (finance, real estate, news, developer tools, etc.) but has notable gaps (e.g., social media APIs, CRM tools). Coverage is broad but not exhaustive, and some niche areas (e.g., global stock exchanges) are over-represented.