Retrieve a previously saved stock screening outcome by name to review or reuse the result.
Retrieve a saved screening result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Safe persistence name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| success | Yes | ||
| provider | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| timestamp | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does 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. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but there is no statement about side effects, failure behavior (e.g., missing name), permissions, or whether results can only be read. This is minimal coverage for an unannotated tool.
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 short single sentence with no filler and the verb is front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it leans toward under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness; it could have added a short usage note without losing brevity.
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?
For a one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It doesn't confirm read-only semantics or clarify the relationship between the input name and previously run screens, but the output schema does resolve some return-value ambiguity.
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 100%, and the name property already carries its own description ('Safe persistence name'), so the tool description adds no parameter meaning. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a clear resource ('saved screening result'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_stock_screen that would create or run a new screen. It doesn't describe what the result contains, but the core action is unambiguous.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as run_stock_screen. The word 'saved' implies it is for previously stored results, but the description never states a direct comparison, when not to use it, or what makes it preferable over running a new screen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.