Retrieve preset stock screens (e.g., Minervini, CANSLIM, VCP) for a market. Use their IDs with run_screen to execute.
Preset screens (Minervini, CANSLIM, VCP, chart patterns, momentum...) with their exact rules.
Pass a screen's id to run_screen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | No | Market code, e.g. US, HK, JP, IN, DE. See list_markets. | US |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the output includes exact rules per screen and that ids are the handoff key to run_screen, but says nothing about auth, pagination, or catalog size, which is a modest addition over annotations.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler. The purpose and the id/run_screen handoff are both front-loaded and immediately actionable.
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 the description needn't explain return values, and the catalog-plus-id workflow is fully conveyed. The only minor gap is that market filtering is left entirely to the schema.
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 single market parameter is fully documented in the schema (including the pointer to list_markets), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions no parameters at all, so baseline 3 applies.
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 the resource concretely — preset screens such as Minervini, CANSLIM, VCP — and adds that each carries its exact rules, so the agent knows it is retrieving a catalog of screening strategies rather than screen results. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings beyond naming run_screen as the consumer, 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?
"Pass a screen's id to run_screen" gives the agent a clear two-step workflow: call list_screens to discover ids, then feed them to run_screen. That is real guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus run_screen, though no exclusions or edge cases are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.