Screen US-listed stocks (NYSE/NASDAQ/AMEX) via Finviz with 100+ filters.
Args: criteria: dict of Finviz filter codes (e.g. {"cap": "large", "sec": "technology"}). Accepts {"screenerUrl": ""} for pre-built screens, or {"market_cap_min": 1e10, "sector": "Technology", "pe_max": 25}. limit: max rows to return (default 50).
| 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. The description adds context about using Finviz and 100+ filters but does not disclose potential rate limits, data freshness, or response format. No contradiction with annotations.
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 structured with a clear first sentence and an Args section. It provides necessary examples without excessive verbosity. Minor room for improvement by front-loading key constraints.
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, the description lacks details on the return format (e.g., tickers, data fields) and does not mention error handling or rate limits. For a tool with flexible inputs and external dependency, this is a notable gap.
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 thoroughly by explaining the criteria parameter accepts Finviz filter codes, a screenerUrl, or human-readable keys with examples, and limit defaults to 50. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 US-listed stocks on NYSE/NASDAQ/AMEX via Finviz, differentiating it from sibling tools for other markets. The verb 'screen' and specific market listing provide high purpose clarity.
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 guides usage by specifying US markets among many siblings. It explains the criteria parameter formats (codes, screenerUrl, human-readable) but lacks explicit when-not or alternative suggestions, limiting full guidance.
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.