Screen companies by financial criteria (high growth, low debt, profitable, high margin, cash rich, undervalued)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 20) | |
| screen | No | Screen type (growth, value, quality, momentum) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / defaultRemoved value: -20Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Maximum number of results"New value: +"Max results (default 20)"Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"integer"New value: +"number"Input schema / properties / max_debt_ratioRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Maximum debt-to-equity ratio",
- "type": "number"
-}Input schema / properties / min_gradeRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Minimum health grade (A, B, C, D, F)",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / min_profit_marginRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Minimum profit margin (e.g. 0.15 for 15%)",
- "type": "number"
-}Input schema / properties / min_revenue_growthRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Minimum revenue growth rate (e.g. 0.1 for 10%)",
- "type": "number"
-}Input schema / properties / screenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Screen type (growth, value, quality, momentum)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, side effects, or safety. Only states what it does, not how it behaves.
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?
Single sentence with 10 words, no redundancy. Efficiently communicates purpose.
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?
Lacks explanation of return format or default behavior for optional parameters. For a screening tool with no output schema, more detail on what is returned would improve completeness.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds example criteria but does not clarify how 'screen' parameter values relate to the listed criteria, providing minimal added value.
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?
Description clearly states it screens companies by financial criteria and lists examples. However, it does not directly map to the 'screen' parameter values (growth, value, quality, momentum), causing slight ambiguity.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings like batch_query or get_company_health. No mention of prerequisites or exclusion criteria.
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.