search_industryFind Indian companies by industry or keyword to research stocks and screen sectors such as IT, banking, or energy.
Search for companies by industry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Industry name or keyword (e.g., 'IT') |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or result characteristics. For a search tool the read-only nature is implied but never stated, and no context beyond the one-line purpose is offered.
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?
A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource and contains no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, the description omits any usage context or behavioral notes, leaving it merely adequate for a one-parameter search.
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 coverage is 100% and the single query parameter is documented with an example ('IT') in the schema itself, so the description adds no meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb (Search) and resource (companies) with the scoping dimension (by industry), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_stock_details or search_mutual_fund. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling lookup tools, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The agent must infer usage 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.