most_stretchedRank US stocks by how much growth is already baked into their price (implied operating-income growth from a reverse-DCF read of the current price). Returns the top N with the growth and duration each price assumes (plus any held margin input). Not a sell list — a ranking of where the bar to clear is highest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many names to return (1-20, default 8) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context by stating it is not a sell list and clarifying the output includes 'growth and duration'. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it omits data-source or timing details.
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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and every clause earns its place. It efficiently covers purpose, method, output, and a caution without redundancy.
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 simple tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers sufficient context: what it does, what it returns, and what it does not do. The reverse-DCF methodology note adds depth, and the no-output-schema gap is compensated by the return-shape description.
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 coverage is 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the schema already documents the range and default. The description references 'top N' but provides no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the input schema already states.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Rank') and identifies the resource ('US stocks') plus the metric ('growth baked into price'), clearly distinguishing it from a generic list or sell recommendation. The parenthetical definition ('implied operating-income growth from a reverse-DCF read') adds precision without ambiguity.
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?
The description conveys clear usage context: it ranks by 'how much growth is already baked into price' and explicitly states it is 'Not a sell list', so an agent knows not to use this to get sell recommendations. However, it doesn't name sibling alternatives like compare_priced_in or whats_priced_in, so the 'when to use vs alternatives' is only partially explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct purpose: single-stock inversion, pairwise comparison, market-wide ranking, coverage inventory, and report summaries. No two tools could be confused for the same function.
Three tools use a verb_noun pattern (compare_priced_in, get_report_summary, list_coverage), but most_stretched is an adjective and whats_priced_in is a question phrase. This mix of styles makes the naming pattern inconsistent, though all are lowercase and underscore-separated.
With exactly 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a niche financial analysis service. Each tool earns its place and there is no unnecessary duplication.
The tool set covers the core workflows: discovering coverage, analyzing a single ticker, comparing two, screening for the most stretched, and accessing report summaries. Any missing functionality (e.g., full report text) is a content restriction, not a tool-surface gap.