Search covered companies by ticker or company name. Returns matching companies with ticker, name, sector, and exchange. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Ticker symbol or company name to search for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the return value (matching companies with ticker, name, sector, exchange) and adds 'Free', but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, case-sensitivity, or handling of no matches. Basic transparency exists, but deeper behavioral traits are not disclosed.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and return fields. Every word adds value, including the note about being 'Free'. No 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?
For a simple single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, how to call it, and what to expect. It doesn't mention behavior on empty results or how it relates to the sibling coverage tools, but for its complexity, it is nearly complete.
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?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter with a description ('Ticker symbol or company name to search for'). The tool description reiterates the same, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since schema coverage is complete.
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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('covered companies') with explicit parameters (ticker or company name). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_company_primer or list_coverage by focusing on discovery rather than deep analysis or full listing.
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 implies usage: search for a company to get basic identifiers. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings, or any exclusions (e.g., 'use list_coverage for a full list'). No direct alternative or context is given, so the usage is implied but not 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.
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.
