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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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.
Several tool groups have overlapping purposes: fda_drug_labels vs health_drug_search, fda_recalls vs health_recalls, fx_official_rates vs treasury_fx_rates, treasury_debt vs us_debt_current, and get_gdp vs get_bea_gdp. These near-duplicates create real ambiguity for an agent deciding which tool to call.
Names mix verb-led styles (get_, search_, compare_, screen_) with domain-led styles (fx_, treasury_, uk_, health_, eurostat_, datausa_). Within the same domain, similar actions use different patterns (get_gdp vs eurostat_gdp vs imf_indicator), making the set feel inconsistent and hard to predict.
75 tools is extreme for any MCP server, especially when many tools are redundant or cover unrelated domains (weather, earthquakes, scholarly search, air quality) outside the stated SEC/economics/demographics/FX focus. This overwhelms agents and burdens context windows.
Core domains like SEC financials, major economic indicators, basic demographics, and current FX rates are well covered. However, gaps remain: no historical FX rates, no stock price/quote tool, limited demographic breakdowns, and no ability to fetch full SEC filing text. Some operations end in dead ends.