egx_sector_scanScan EGX stocks by sector. Shows available sectors if none specified.
Args:
sector: Sector name (banks, healthcare_and_pharma, real_estate, etc.)
Leave empty to list all sectors.
timeframe: One of 5m, 15m, 1h, 4h, 1D, 1W, 1M
limit: Max results per sector (max 50)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| sector | No | ||
| timeframe | No | 1D |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact (it lists all sectors when the sector arg is empty) and the hard cap of 50 per sector, but says nothing about rate limits, pagination, or ordering.
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 scoping sentence is front-loaded and the docstring-style Args block is easy to parse. There is mild redundancy between 'Shows available sectors if none specified' and 'Leave empty to list all sectors', which says the same thing twice.
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?
With no output schema, the description should hint at what a 'scan' actually returns (candles, indicators, ranked symbols?), but it never does. Parameters are fully covered, yet the return shape and sibling differentiation are missing, leaving real gaps for a scan tool.
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 description coverage is 0% and no enums are declared in the schema, so the description carries the full burden. It compensates well by listing example sector keys, enumerating all valid timeframe values, and stating the max of 50 for limit.
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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Scan EGX stocks by sector') and names the exchange, so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identically named sibling egx_sector_scanner, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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?
'Shows available sectors if none specified' hints at the empty-input mode, but the description gives no when-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling scanners (egx_sector_scanner, egx_stock_screener, egx_market_overview). Usage is only implied, not contrasted against alternatives.
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.