egx_stock_screenerProduction stock ranking engine for EGX — finds strong stocks with actionable setups.
Args:
timeframe: One of 5m, 15m, 1h, 4h, 1D, 1W, 1M (default 1D)
min_score: Minimum stock score to include (0-100, default 55)
index_filter: Filter by index — EGX30, EGX70, EGX100, SHARIAH33, EGX35LV, TAMAYUZ
limit: Number of results (max 50)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| min_score | No | ||
| timeframe | No | 1D | |
| index_filter | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a 'production' scoring engine with a 0-100 score threshold, which gives useful framing, but says nothing about output shape, result freshness, or rate limits.
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?
Front-loads purpose in one sentence, then a compact Args block that is easy to scan. Nearly every line earns its place, with only mild padding in the 'actionable setups' phrasing.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the main contract, and it covers all four optional inputs with valid values and defaults. The remaining gap is that it never sketches the returned ranking structure or how scores are derived, which an agent would want for a screener.
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%, so the description carries the full burden and largely does: it enumerates timeframe values (5m through 1M), the min_score range and default, the accepted index_filter tokens, and the limit ceiling of 50. It omits the limit default (20 in the schema) and doesn't clarify units for min_score beyond 0-100, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: a ranking/screening engine for EGX stocks that surfaces 'strong stocks with actionable setups.' That separates it from the generic stock_screener and from the narrower egx_sector_scanner/egx_smart_money_scanner siblings, though it never names them. 'Strong stocks with actionable setups' is somewhat marketing-flavored rather than precise about the ranking criteria.
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 explains what the tool does but never says when to reach for it over the many sibling screeners (stock_screener, egx_sector_scanner, egx_smart_money_scanner, rating_filter). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative guidance, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name alone.
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.