Filters a symbol list by technical criteria such as RSI limits and SMA position, returning only matches for the specified time range.
Screen a list of symbols against technical criteria (e.g. maxRsi, mustBeAbove200Sma).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endTime | Yes | ||
| criteria | No | ||
| interval | No | ||
| startTime | Yes | ||
| symbolIds | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions screening against criteria but doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it fetches live data, how results are returned, or any side effects. For a screening tool that likely performs computation over time series, the lack of behavioral context is a notable gap.
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 a single sentence that is reasonably concise and front-loads the core purpose. It includes useful examples of criteria. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from parameter details, but it is not overly verbose.
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 the tool has 5 parameters, a nested criteria object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the time range parameters, the interval enum, or how the criteria interact (e.g., AND vs OR). An agent would need to infer too much to call this tool correctly.
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 must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions two example criteria (maxRsi, mustBeAbove200Sma) and doesn't explain the meaning of startTime, endTime, interval, symbolIds, or the other criteria fields. The nested criteria object is left mostly unexplained, and the time range semantics are not described.
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 ('Screen') and resource ('a list of symbols') against technical criteria, with concrete examples (maxRsi, mustBeAbove200Sma). It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like qt_analyze_technicals or qt_compare_symbols, which could overlap in purpose.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like qt_analyze_technicals and qt_compare_symbols likely perform similar technical analysis, but the description doesn't explain the distinction or when to prefer one over the other. The context is implied by the name and description but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.