Screen Singapore Exchange (SGX) — STI components and SE-Asia REIT universe.
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=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the universe (STI and REITs) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, auth needs, or side effects). With annotations covering safety and openness, the description provides minimal extra transparency, warranting a 3.
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 two sentences: the first clearly states purpose and universe, the second lists parameters. Every word earns its place; no fluff. Front-loaded and efficient, earning a 5.
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 no output schema and many siblings, the description sufficiently covers the tool's scope (exchange and universe) and parameters. It lacks details on return format or pagination, but the limit parameter partially addresses that. Adequate for a screening tool with read-only annotations, so 4.
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?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains criteria as a filter dict with examples (sector, market cap, dividend yield) and limit as max rows. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though 'etc.' is vague and no format details are given. Baseline 3 would be for high schema coverage; here description adds value, so 4.
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 Singapore Exchange (SGX) specifically for STI components and SE-Asia REIT universe. This provides a specific verb ('Screen'), a clear resource ('SGX'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that target other exchanges, earning a 5.
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 SGX screening, and sibling tool names (e.g., screen_australia_asx) clearly differentiate by exchange. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is given, so it gets a 4.
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.