Screen Bursa Malaysia — FBM KLCI components and Main Market.
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, so the safe, read-only nature is clear. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that, so it meets expectations without excess.
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 very short: a summary line followed by a bullet-style Args list. It is front-loaded and to the point, losing a point only for a slightly informal 'etc.'
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 simple schema (2 optional params, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks details on the output format or the exact structure of the criteria dict, which could be beneficial for a screening tool.
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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining 'criteria: filter dict (sector, market cap, etc.)' and 'limit: max rows to return.' This adds meaning beyond the schema, though 'etc.' leaves some ambiguity.
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 'Screen Bursa Malaysia — FBM KLCI components and Main Market.' This specifies the market and scope, and with sibling tools named by region, it is easy to distinguish.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The market name implies context, but the description does not discuss alternatives or prerequisites.
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.