Skip to main content
Glama

global-equities-screener-mcp

screen_china_chinext

Read-only

Screen ChiNext (Shenzhen growth board) — China's Nasdaq-equivalent for growth companies.

Args: criteria: filter dict (sector, market cap, P/E, etc.) limit: max rows to return

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
criteriaNo

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, mentioning that it returns rows based on criteria and limit. It does not disclose any additional traits like pagination or rate limits, which would be helpful but are not required given the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences defining the tool's purpose and a bulleted list of arguments. No fluff; every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple screening tool with no output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics. It lacks details on output format or error conditions, but the open-world hint suggests the agent can explore. Somewhat complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes 'criteria' as a filter dict with examples (sector, market cap, P/E, etc.) and 'limit' as max rows. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more detailed on acceptable values.

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 clearly states 'Screen ChiNext (Shenzhen growth board) — China's Nasdaq-equivalent for growth companies.' It uses a specific verb (Screen) and resource (ChiNext), distinguishing it from sibling tools that screen other markets.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for ChiNext stocks through its title and the context of sibling tools for other markets. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct geographic exchange, with no overlap in markets screened. The descriptions specify the exchange and indices, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool for a given country.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the exact same naming pattern: 'screen_<country>_<exchange>' in snake_case, providing a clear and predictable structure. There are no deviations or mixed conventions.

Tool Count4/5

26 tools is on the high side, but appropriate for a global equities screener covering many countries. Each tool serves a distinct market, so the count is justified by the breadth of coverage.

Completeness4/5

The set covers most major global equity markets, including US, China, India, Japan, and many others. However, some notable markets like Russia or some European exchanges are missing, and there is no tool for screening ETFs or indices directly.

Resources