[Global Equities Screener] Screen US-listed stocks (NYSE/NASDAQ/AMEX) via Finviz with 100+ filters.
Args: criteria: dict of Finviz filter codes (e.g. {"cap": "large", "sec": "technology"}). Accepts {"screenerUrl": ""} for pre-built screens, or {"market_cap_min": 1e10, "sector": "Technology", "pe_max": 25}. limit: max rows to return (default 50).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| criteria | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description does not contradict these, as screening is a read operation. However, it does not add significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as rate limits, pagination, or error handling. It describes input format but not deeper behavioral traits.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose, followed by bullet-pointed args. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous information. It is concise yet informative.
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 complexity of 100+ filters and multiple input formats, the description is reasonably complete. It explains two input modes with examples. However, it omits information about return format or output structure, which would enhance completeness for a tool without an output schema.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the 'criteria' parameter can be a dict of Finviz codes, a screenerUrl, or high-level parameters, and that 'limit' controls max rows. This adds valuable meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 it screens US-listed stocks on NYSE/NASDAQ/AMEX via Finviz with 100+ filters. It distinguishes from numerous sibling tools by specifying the US market and exchange, making the purpose highly specific and unambiguous.
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 gives example input formats (Finviz filter codes, screenerUrl, high-level parameters) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings. While the US focus is implied, there is no guidance on exclusions or alternatives, leaving usage context inferred.
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.