Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• screener_get_company_overviewA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=True, idempotentHint=True. Description adds behavioral details like error handling (returns error if no match found), which is useful beyond annotations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Well-structured with sections (description, args, returns, examples, error handling). Every sentence provides value; no fluff.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Despite no output schema, description specifies return format as JSON with fields. Covers error handling and prerequisites. Complete for a simple read-only tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so schema already documents both parameters. Description's Args section restates schema info without adding significant new meaning, meeting baseline expectation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Clearly states the tool fetches a company snapshot including key ratios, about description, pros/cons. Explicitly distinguishes from siblings by listing what it does NOT include (financial statements, peer comparison).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides explicit when-to-use (e.g., 'What is TCS's current P/E?') and when-not-to-use (e.g., need multi-year statements, use screener_get_financial_statement). Also suggests using screener_search_companies if unsure of identifier.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• screener_get_financial_statementA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a multi-period table with a specific JSON structure, and explains error cases (statement section not present, company not found). This goes beyond what annotations provide.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling. Every sentence serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the most important information. No redundancy or filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, multi-period tabular return data, no output schema), the description is thorough. It covers input semantics, output structure (section, periods, rows), examples, and error handling. No gaps remain for a typical use case.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's Args section restates parameter meanings with examples, but the schema already has detailed descriptions for each property. It adds modest value by showing how parameters are used in queries.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool fetches multi-period financial statement tables from Screener.in, listing five specific statement types. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly saying when not to use it (for current P/E or market cap, use screener_get_company_overview).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides explicit examples for when to use the tool with realistic queries ('Show me TCS's profit & loss' → identifier='TCS', statement='profit-loss') and when not to ('Don't use when: You just want current P/E or market cap'). Also notes error handling for missing statements.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• screener_get_peer_comparisonA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  Annotations already mark as readOnly and idempotent. The description adds the return JSON structure, error handling for missing peer tables, and confirms it replicates the website's table. No contradictions; adds valuable context beyond annotations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, examples, error handling). Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or fluff.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a full picture: input types, return format (including structure), usage examples, and an error case. This is sufficient for an AI agent to use correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters (identifier and consolidated). The description's Args section merely repeats the schema's information without adding new semantic meaning, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool fetches the peer-comparison table from Screener.in, specifying it returns industry peers and typical columns. It distinguishes itself from siblings like screener_run_custom_screen by noting this uses Screener's default peer set.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The 'Examples' section provides explicit use-cases: when to use (comparing a company to peers) and when not to use (custom peer set), even naming the alternative tool (screener_run_custom_screen). This is exemplary guidance.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• screener_run_custom_screenA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the guest session cap on results, details error response formats, and describes the return structure. No contradictions with annotations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, arguments, returns, examples, and error handling. It is front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The length is appropriate for the complexity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage, moderate complexity (custom query syntax), and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the query language, provides examples, covers guest limitations, details return format, and addresses error scenarios. It also references sibling tools for comparison.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by providing examples of query syntax, listing common financial fields, explaining the limit parameter's behavior under guest access, and giving practical usage patterns. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states it runs a custom stock screen using Screener.in's query-builder syntax against financial data and returns matching companies. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting it is for screening multiple companies at once, and provides a 'Don't use when' example that names the sibling tool for individual companies.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives explicit when-to-use context (core screener feature) and when-not-to-use (use screener_get_company_overview for single companies). It includes example use cases and queries, error handling guidance, and notes about guest session limits. It clearly states when to prefer alternatives.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• screener_search_companiesA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds detail about return format (JSON with results array, empty array on no match) and the relative URL structure, which provides helpful behavioral context beyond annotations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise and well-structured with separate sections for Args, Returns, Examples, and Error Handling. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or vague language.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple search tool with one parameter and high schema coverage, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, usage, return format, error behavior, and integration with sibling tools. No gaps remain for an agent to guess.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, with the single 'query' parameter already described. The description adds value by providing concrete examples ('TCS', 'Infosys', 'HDFC Bank') and specifying the max length (100 chars) from schema, helping agents choose correct input format.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool searches Screener.in for listed Indian companies by name or ticker symbol. It distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating this is the first step when unsure of the exact identifier, and specifies the output contains 'id', 'name', and 'url' for use with other screener tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicit guidance is provided: use when unsure of exact ticker, and don't use when you already have the ticker (instead call screener_get_company_overview directly). Examples reinforce correct usage.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.