Screen Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) — LQ45, IDX30, full Jakarta board.
Args: criteria: filter dict (sector, market cap, 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=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., filtering capability) but does not disclose side effects or return behavior beyond what annotations imply.
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, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence, with no superfluous text. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple screening tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, target indices, and parameter semantics. Lack of output documentation is acceptable given no 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'criteria' as a filter dict with examples (sector, market cap) and 'limit' as max rows, adding meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.
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 the tool screens the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) and specifies sub-indices (LQ45, IDX30, full Jakarta board), distinguishing it from sibling country-specific screeners.
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 usage for Indonesian stocks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tool names provide context by naming other countries.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.