Screen Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) — PSEi components and broader 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 and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to repeat these. The description adds minor context about the scope (PSEi and broader market) but does not disclose additional 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 very concise: one sentence followed by a brief Args list. Every word adds value, with no 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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's basic use, though it could benefit from mentioning return format or typical use cases.
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 by explaining the criteria parameter as a filter dict and the limit parameter as max rows. However, the explanation is vague (e.g., 'sector, market cap, etc.') and lacks specifics about allowed keys or values.
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 Philippine Stock Exchange, specifically PSEi components and broader market. This distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting other countries.
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 implicitly provides context by specifying the market, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, given the sibling tools are all country-specific, the context is clear.
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.