list_covered_stocksBrowse the covered universe, optionally filtered by market, sector, or ticker/name. Results include the latest signal score and trend when available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default 50, max 200. | |
| query | No | ||
| market | No | ||
| sector | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that results include the latest signal score and trend 'when available', which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior or the default limit, which could affect agent expectations.
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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Browse the covered universe') and efficiently convey filters and output content. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 four optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context for a listing tool: it states filters and result fields. Minor gaps like limit default and pagination are not critical but would add 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?
The description explicitly maps filters to market, sector, and ticker/name, clarifying the purpose of query, market, and sector parameters. Schema coverage is low (25%), so this compensation is valuable. The 'limit' parameter is not described in the description but is already documented in the 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 browses the covered universe with optional filters, which matches the title 'List covered stocks'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_technical_analysis and screen_technicals by focusing on the universe listing with signal scores and trends, but does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 usage context is implied ('Browse the covered universe') but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like search or screen_technicals. It doesn't state exclusions or prerequisites, which would help an agent decide between tools.
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.
fetch and get_technical_analysis overlap in retrieving technical data for a stock, though fetch provides a full record while get_technical_analysis is limited to cached levels. search, list_covered_stocks, and screen_technicals are more distinct but still share the browsing/screening space.
The naming mixes short verbs (fetch, search) with longer verb_noun phrases (list_covered_stocks, screen_technicals) and a verb_adjective_noun (get_technical_analysis). The patterns are not consistent, but all names are readable and actions are inferable.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for a technical analysis domain. Each tool addresses a core need: retrieve, analyze, list, screen, and search, without excess or redundancy that would bloat the surface.
The domain is stock technical analysis, and the tool set covers the essential operations: fetching detailed records, accessing technical indicators, browsing the universe, screening, and searching. There are no obvious missing functions for read-only technical analysis.