Request research coverage for a US-listed company not yet in the coverage universe. Coverage is typically added within 24-48 hours. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Optional email address to notify when coverage is ready | ||
| ticker | Yes | Stock ticker symbol to request coverage for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that coverage is typically added within 24-48 hours and that the service is free, but it does not describe what happens after submission, whether duplicate requests are allowed, or how invalid tickers are handled.
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, focused sentences capture the action, eligibility, timeline, and cost. No filler or redundant content; the most important information is front-loaded.
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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core requirements: what the tool does, who it is for, what the expected turnaround is, and that it is free. Minor gaps remain around the exact response or next steps after a successful request.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by constraining the ticker to US-listed companies not yet in the coverage universe, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Stock ticker symbol to request coverage for' description.
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 states the action ('Request research coverage') and the target resource ('US-listed company not yet in the coverage universe'). The verb is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling retrieval tools like list_coverage and search_research.
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 phrase 'not yet in the coverage universe' provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or what to do for companies already covered, only implicitly excludes them.
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.
The three research products (primer, fundamental analysis, memo) are clearly differentiated by depth and cost. list_coverage and search_research overlap somewhat, but the distinction between enumerating all covered tickers and querying by name/ticker is evident from their descriptions.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (get_*, list_*, request_*, search_*). The verbs accurately reflect their actions, making the set predictable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for an equity research service, covering discovery, free/paid research tiers, and coverage requests without unnecessary complexity.
The surface covers the full workflow: free primer for any US company, paid deep-dive analysis, coverage listing/search, and the ability to request new coverage. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
