Screen Saudi Arabia's Tadawul exchange — TASI components, Aramco, banks, petrochems.
Args: criteria: filter dict (sector, market cap, 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 provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool screens specific sectors (banks, petrochems) and defines limit as 'max rows to return,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior details like error handling, return format, or how the criteria works beyond a vague list.
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: one line for purpose and one line for args. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.
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 complexity (2 params, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description provides the market context and parameter meaning but lacks details on criteria structure, return data, or pagination. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to make assumptions.
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 add meaning. It describes 'criteria' as a filter dict with examples (sector, market cap, dividend yield) and 'limit' as max rows. This provides basic semantics but lacks precision on allowed keys, formats, or defaults. Competently covers the gap but incompletely.
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 Saudi Arabia's Tadawul exchange and mentions specific components (TASI, Aramco, banks, petrochems), providing a clear verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the market name, which is sufficient but not highlighted.
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 Saudi Tadawul screening via the market name, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. other screen tools or provide any exclusion criteria. No guidance on prerequisites or alternatives beyond the implicit market distinction.
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.