Rank companies in a specific sector by a selected metric, excluding incomparable rows. Choose sort direction and limit to identify leading or lagging performers.
Rank companies in a sector by one metric, excluding incomparable rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | Yes | ||
| metric | Yes | ||
| sector | Yes | ||
| direction | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows | Yes | ||
| excluded | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the notable behavior of excluding incomparable rows, which is useful, but it does not clarify what makes rows incomparable or how direction/limit affect the ranking. A little more disclosure would be warranted for a tool with no annotation safety signals.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action and qualifier are placed efficiently, and every word contributes to meaning.
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?
The output schema covers return structure, and sector/direction parameters have enums, but the free-form metric parameter is left unexplained and 'incomparable rows' is undefined. For a 4-required-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.
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%, yet the description only rephrases 'metric' as 'one metric' and 'sector' implicitly. It does not explain valid metric values, the meaning of direction, or how limit is applied, leaving key parameter meaning to inference.
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 captures the action (rank companies), scope (in a sector), and method (by one metric), with 'excluding incomparable rows' adding a useful qualifier. It is distinct from siblings in that it ranks rather than lists or fetches, but it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 explicit guidance says when to use run_sector_screen versus list_companies, get_financials, or get_hiring_signals. The wording implies the use case—when a user wants ranked sector results by a chosen metric—but does not state exclusions or when another tool would be better.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.