Screen Tokyo Stock Exchange (TSE) — Nikkei 225, TOPIX, Prime / Standard / Growth markets.
Args: criteria: filter dict (sector, market cap, P/B, dividend yield, 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, so the description's value is limited. It adds that the tool filters by criteria and returns rows, but does not disclose specifics like rate limits, pagination, or default behavior. The open world hint already covers variability, so no contradiction.
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 concise with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and structured with an Args section. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.
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 tool has only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and how to use the parameters. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the screening scope and inputs.
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 effectively explains 'criteria' as a filter dict with examples (sector, market cap, P/B, dividend yield etc.) and 'limit' as max rows. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.
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 the Tokyo Stock Exchange and lists specific indices and market segments (Nikkei 225, TOPIX, Prime/Standard/Growth). The tool name and description uniquely identify the target exchange, distinguishing it from sibling tools for other markets.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling tools are listed, there is no comparative advice or mention of prerequisites or limitations. The context implies it is for screening Japan TSE, but lacks depth in usage context.
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.